A Phase 2 Trial of Peresolimab for Adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Peresolimab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody designed to stimulate the endogenous programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitory pathway. Stimulation of this pathway would be a novel approach to the treatment of patients with autoimmune or autoinflammatory diseases. METHODS: In this phase 2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 2:1:1 ratio, adult patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who had had an inadequate response to, a loss of response to, or unacceptable side effects with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs to receive 700 mg of peresolimab, 300 mg of peresolimab, or placebo intravenously once every 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 12 in the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP). The DAS28-CRP ranges from 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The primary comparison was between the 700-mg group and the placebo group. Secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients with American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses - defined as improvements from baseline of 20%, 50%, and 70% or more, respectively, in the numbers of tender and swollen joints and in at least three of five important domains - at week 12. RESULTS: At week 12, the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP was significantly greater in the 700-mg peresolimab group than in the placebo group (least-squares mean change [±SE], -2.09±0.18 vs. -0.99±0.26; difference in change, -1.09 [95% confidence interval, -1.73 to -0.46]; P<0.001). The results of the analyses of secondary outcomes favored the 700-mg dose over placebo with respect to the ACR20 response but not with respect to the ACR50 and ACR70 responses. Adverse events were similar in the peresolimab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Peresolimab showed efficacy in a phase 2a trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. These results provide evidence that stimulation of the PD-1 receptor has potential efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04634253.).

Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014-000555-93). FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9-45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase. FUNDING: Innovative Medicine Initiative.

Olokizumab versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cytokine interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Olokizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 cytokine directly, is being tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, placebo- and active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate to receive subcutaneous olokizumab at a dose of 64 mg every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), or placebo; all patients continued methotrexate therapy. The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% fewer tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in three of five other domains) at week 12, with each olokizumab dose tested for superiority to placebo. We also tested the noninferiority of each olokizumab dose to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response (noninferiority margin, -12 percentage points in the lower boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between groups). RESULTS: A total of 464 patients were assigned to receive olokizumab every 2 weeks, 479 to receive olokizumab every 4 weeks, 462 to receive adalimumab, and 243 to receive placebo. An ACR20 response at week 12 occurred in 44.4% of the patients receiving placebo, in 70.3% receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 25.9 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 17.1 to 34.1), in 71.4% receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 27.0 percentage points; 97.5% CI, 18.3 to 35.2), and in 66.9% receiving adalimumab (difference vs. placebo, 22.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 14.8 to 29.8) (P<0.001 for the superiority of each olokizumab dose to placebo). Both olokizumab doses were noninferior to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 (difference, 3.4 percentage points [97.5% CI, -3.5 to 10.2] with olokizumab every 2 weeks and 4.5 percentage points [97.5% CI, -2.2 to 11.2] with olokizumab every 4 weeks). Adverse events, most commonly infections, occurred in approximately 70% of the patients who received olokizumab. Antibodies against olokizumab were detected in 3.8% of the patients receiving the drug every 2 weeks and in 5.1% of those receiving it every 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving maintenance methotrexate, olokizumab was superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab in producing an ACR20 response at 12 weeks. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Supported by R-Pharm; CREDO2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407.).

Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority, postauthorization, safety end-point trial involving patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment who were 50 years of age or older and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily or a TNF inhibitor. The coprimary end points were adjudicated MACE and cancers, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The noninferiority of tofacitinib would be shown if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was less than 1.8 for the combined tofacitinib doses as compared with a TNF inhibitor. RESULTS: A total of 1455 patients received tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg twice daily, 1456 received tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, and 1451 received a TNF inhibitor. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, the incidences of MACE and cancer were higher with the combined tofacitinib doses (3.4% [98 patients] and 4.2% [122 patients], respectively) than with a TNF inhibitor (2.5% [37 patients] and 2.9% [42 patients]). The hazard ratios were 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.94) for MACE and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.09) for cancers; the noninferiority of tofacitinib was not shown. The incidences of adjudicated opportunistic infections (including herpes zoster and tuberculosis), all herpes zoster (nonserious and serious), and adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer were higher with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor. Efficacy was similar in all three groups, with improvements from month 2 that were sustained through trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial comparing the combined tofacitinib doses with a TNF inhibitor in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population, risks of MACE and cancers were higher with tofacitinib and did not meet noninferiority criteria. Several adverse events were more common with tofacitinib. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Surveillance ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092467.).

In patients at high risk for RA, abatacept reduced inflammation and RA development at 6 mo.

SOURCE CITATION: Rech J, Tascilar K, Hagen M, et al. Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2024;403:850-859. 38364841.

Rheumatology: What You May Have Missed in 2023.

Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive care from physicians other than rheumatologists. Here we note key findings from 6 studies in rheumatology published in 2023 that offer valuable insights for internal medicine specialists and subspecialists outside of rheumatology. The first study investigated the effect of low-dose glucocorticoids on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 2 years and challenged existing perceptions about the risks of glucocorticoids in this setting. The second study focused on the updated guideline for preventing and treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. With the chronic and widespread use of glucocorticoids, the American College of Rheumatology emphasized the importance of assessing fracture risk and initiating pharmacologic therapy when appropriate. The third study explored the potential use of methotrexate in treating inflammatory hand osteoarthritis, suggesting a novel approach to managing this challenging and common condition. The results of the fourth article we highlight suggest that sarilumab has promise as an adjunct treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica relapse during glucocorticoid dosage tapering. The fifth study evaluated sublingual cyclobenzaprine for fibromyalgia treatment, noting both potential benefits and risks. Finally, the sixth article is a systematic review and meta-analysis that assessed the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilars and reference biologics in the treatment of patients with RA. Knowledge of this recent literature will be useful to clinicians regardless of specialty who care for patients with these commonly encountered conditions.

Long-term safety of biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs in rheumatology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The landscape for treatment of rheumatic diseases is ever evolving, with several new drugs recently approved across diseases and more in the pipeline. This timely review aims to highlight the latest literature on long-term safety profiles of salient established and emerging biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). RECENT FINDINGS: The risk of infection remains elevated with the use of most b and tsDMARDs, with specifically risk of hepatitis B reactivation with rituximab and zoster infection with JAK inhibitors (JAKi). The results of the ORAL surveillance trial led to new black box warnings for JAKi and evoked critical risk-benefit discussions surrounding JAKi and DMARDs overall. SUMMARY: Such well conducted trials are needed to gather long term comparative safety data of DMARDs. In the interim, real world observational studies also have a role to play in our understanding of long-term drug safety, provided that detailed attention is paid to minimize biases inherent in observational studies.

Safety of biologic agents for the management of rheumatic diseases during pregnancy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the current understanding regarding the use of biologic therapeutics in pregnancy. RECENT FINDINGS: Our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the potential fetal and infant exposure to biologics as well as a growing body of empirical evidence from real world use of biologics in pregnancy have demonstrated that biologics are generally compatible preconception and during pregnancy. Long-term effects of exposure to biologic agents in utero are not known, but will be uncovered in time. Biosimilars, which are becoming more popular, may not always share the same safety profiles as their originators. SUMMARY: Biologics have revolutionized the management of rheumatologic disease and ushered in a new era of clinical remission among patients. These agents, developed and introduced into clinical use at the beginning of the new millennium, are very potent, yet their efficacy in treating disease often in reproductive aged women, raises questions regarding their safety during pregnancy. These therapeutics can cause immunosuppression and can inhibit immunologic circuits that are not only involved in disease pathophysiology but hypothetically could impact the development of the fetal immune system. Reassuringly, biologics, typically antibodies or antibody-based proteins, are introduced to the fetus via the typical route of transplacental antibody transfer, and thus only begin to be transferred in appreciable amounts in the second trimester (after organogenesis). From theoretic and empirical standpoints, biologic use during pregnancy appears well tolerated for fetal development and to not substantially affect infant immune development.

Bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis, naive to biologic treatment: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE OPTIMAL).

BACKGROUND: Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F. We assessed the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: BE OPTIMAL was a 52-week, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active reference (adalimumab) trial done at 135 sites (hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, and research centres) in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a documented diagnosis of adult-onset psoriatic arthritis that met the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis for at least 6 months before screening. Participants were randomly assigned with an interactive-voice and web-response system on the basis of a predetermined randomisation schedule (3:2:1, stratified by region and bone erosion number at baseline) to bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, placebo every 2 weeks, or the reference group (adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks), all administered subcutaneously. At week 16, patients randomly assigned to placebo switched to bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reaching 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) at week 16 (non-responder imputation). Efficacy analyses included all patients who were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population); the safety analysis set comprised patients who received one or more doses of treatment. Data are presented to week 24 (preplanned analysis). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03895203. FINDINGS: Between April 3, 2019, and Oct 25, 2021, 1163 patients were screened and 852 were randomly assigned to bimekizumab (n=431), placebo (n=281), and reference (adalimumab; n=140) groups. At week 16, significantly more patients receiving bimekizumab (189 [44%] of 431) reached ACR50 response versus placebo (28 [10%] of 281; odds ratio 7·1 [95% CI 4·6-10·9], p<0·0001; adalimumab 64 [46%] of 140). All secondary hierarchical endpoints were met. Treatment-emergent adverse events up to week 16 were reported in 258 [60%] of 431 patients receiving bimekizumab, 139 [49%] of 281 patients receiving placebo, and 83 [59%] of 140 patients receiving adalimumab. No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Bimekizumab treatment had superior improvements in joint, skin, and radiographic efficacy outcomes at week 16 compared with placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were naive to biologic DMARDs. The safety profile of bimekizumab, including the occurrence of fungal infections, was consistent with previous phase 3 studies in patients with plaque psoriasis, and with IL-17A inhibitors. FUNDING: UCB Pharma.

Trial of Upadacitinib and Adalimumab for Psoriatic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib is a potential treatment for psoriatic arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, in patients who have an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are unclear. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib at a dose of 15 mg or 30 mg once daily, placebo, or subcutaneous adalimumab (40 mg every other week). The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% decrease in the number of tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in at least three of five other domains) at week 12 with upadacitinib as compared with placebo. Secondary end points included comparisons of upadacitinib with adalimumab. RESULTS: A total of 1704 patients received an active drug or placebo. The percentage of patients who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was 70.6% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 78.5% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 36.2% with placebo (P<0.001 for both upadacitinib doses vs. placebo), and 65.0% with adalimumab. The difference between groups for 15-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 5.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 11.8) and for 30-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 13.5 percentage points (95% CI, 7.5 to 19.4). Both upadacitinib doses were noninferior to adalimumab for the ACR20 response at week 12; the 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. The incidence of adverse events through week 24 was 66.9% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 72.3% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 59.6% with placebo, and 64.8% with adalimumab. There were serious infections in 1.2%, 2.6%, 0.9%, and 0.7% of the patients, respectively. Hepatic disorders occurred in 9.1% of patients in the 15-mg upadacitinib group and 12.3% in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, but grade 3 increases in aminotransferase levels occurred in 2% of patients or fewer in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with psoriatic arthritis who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was significantly higher with 15-mg or 30-mg upadacitinib than with placebo. The 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. Adverse events were more frequent with upadacitinib than with placebo. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-PsA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03104400.).

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and risk of thyroxine-treated autoimmune thyroid disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) share a genetic background, and the prevalence of AITD in RA patients is increased. Whereas immunomodulatory treatments are used in RA, they are rarely used in AITD. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as used in RA might lower the risk of incident AITD. METHODS: A nationwide cohort study including 13,731 patients with new-onset RA from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register 2006-2018 and 63,201 matched general population comparators linked to national registers to identify AITD. We estimated relative risks (hazard ratios) of AITD after RA diagnosis in RA patients compared to the general population, and in relation to DMARD treatment, using Cox regression. RESULTS: Following RA diagnosis, 321 (2.3%) of the RA patients and 1838 (2.9%) of the population comparators developed AITD, corresponding to an incidence of 3.7 versus 4.6 per 1000 person-years, hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.91. The decreased risk of incident AITD among RA patients compared to the general population was most pronounced among biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treated patients, with a hazard ratio of 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.76. Among RA patients, subgrouped by bDMARD use, TNF-inhibitors were associated with the most pronounced decrease, hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.96. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the increased prevalence of AITD in RA patients at diagnosis, our results indicate that the risk of AITD decreases following RA diagnosis. This decrease is especially pronounced in RA patients treated with bDMARDs. These findings support the hypothesis that DMARDs might have a preventive effect on AITD.

Initial glucocorticoid bridging in rheumatoid arthritis: does it affect glucocorticoid use over time?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy. METHODS: Data from the BeSt, CareRA and COBRA trials were combined in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We compared GC use between bridgers and non-bridgers at 12, 18 and 24 months from baseline with mixed-effects regression analysis. Secondary outcomes were mean cumulative GC dose until 24 months after baseline with and without the bridging period, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) over time and number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) changes. RESULTS: 252/625 patients (40%) were randomised to GC bridging (bridgers). Excluding the period of bridging, later GC use was low in both groups and cumulative doses were similar. Mean DAS28 was similar between the groups, but bridgers improved more rapidly (p<0.001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.94)). GC use was higher in the bridgers at t=12 months (OR 3.27 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.08)) and the bridging schedules resulted in a difference in cumulative GC dose of 2406 mg (95% CI 1403 to 3408) over 24 months. CONCLUSION: In randomised trials comparing GC bridging and no GC bridging, bridgers had a more rapid clinical improvement, fewer DMARD changes and similar late use of GC compared with non-bridgers. GC bridging per protocol resulted, as could be expected, in a higher cumulative GC dose over 2 years.

Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: ~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Subtherapeutic hydroxychloroquine concentration is associated with increased disease activity and greater organ damage in lupus.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of the serum HCQ concentration on clinical manifestations, disease activity and organ damage in a longitudinal cohort of SLE patients. METHODS: The 338 SLE patients were assessed with respect to their demographic data, clinical and laboratory findings, Physician's Global Assessment (PGA), adjusted mean SLEDAI-2000 (AMS) and SLICC Damage Index (SDI) annually for 5 consecutive years. Patients were divided into two groups according to their serum HCQ concentration at baseline: subtherapeutic (<500 ng/ml) and therapeutic (≥500 ng/ml) groups. The impact of the HCQ concentration on the clinical outcomes was evaluated in a longitudinal analysis using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). RESULTS: Of the 338 patients, 287 (84.9%) were in the subtherapeutic group at baseline. This group had a higher incidence of newly developed LN (P = 0.036) and had been prescribed higher mean and cumulative doses of prednisolone (P = 0.003 and P = 0.013, respectively) than the therapeutic group. In multivariable analyses based on GEE, the subtherapeutic group had a higher AMS score (ß = 1.398, 95% CI 0.607, 2.189; P < 0.001), higher PGA score (ß = 0.328, 95% CI 0.215, 0.441; P < 0.001) and higher SDI score (ß = 0.366, 95% CI 0.061, 0.671; P = 0.019) across all 5 years. CONCLUSION: The subtherapeutic HCQ concentration was associated with the development of new-onset LN, and had significant associations with disease activity and cumulative organ damage in SLE patients over time.

New-onset atrial fibrillation in seropositive rheumatoid arthritis: association with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a potentially lethal complication that leads to increased hospitalization, disability and mortality. Furthermore, the risk of cardiovascular disease is increased in RA. We evaluated whether DMARD treatment is associated with incident AF in patients with seropositive RA (SPRA). METHODS: The South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database was used to identify patients newly diagnosed with SPRA between 2010 and 2020. A nested case-control analysis was performed to match AF-affected patients to unaffected controls for age, sex, follow-up duration, and index year of SPRA diagnosis at a 1:4 ratio. Adjusted conditional logistic regression was used to identify the predictive factors for AF. RESULTS: Of the 108 085 patients with SPRA, 2,629 (2.4%) developed new-onset AF, and the proportion of females was ∼67%. In the matched population, pre-existing comorbidities of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure were associated with increased risk of AF. Meanwhile, the use of methotrexate (MTX) decreased the risk of incident AF [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.89], whereas the use of leflunomide (LEF) increased AF (aOR, 1.21). In a subgroup of patients aged ≥50 years, LEF and adalimumab increased the occurrence of AF, while MTX decreased AF in males and LEF increased this risk in females. CONCLUSION: Although the number of subjects developing new-onset AF was small, MTX decreased and LEF increased incident AF in patients with RA. Especially, a distinct pattern of AF risk with DMARDs usage was observed according to age and sex.

The effect of antimalarials on the safety and persistence of treatment with biologic agents or Janus kinase inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To test the association of use of antimalarials with the overall safety of treatment in RA patients receiving one or multiple courses of biologic (b)DMARDs or a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi). METHODS: BiobadaBrasil is a multicentric registry-based cohort study of Brazilian patients with rheumatic diseases starting their first bDMARD or JAKi. The present analysis includes RA patients recruited from January 2009 to October 2019, followed up over one or multiple (up to six) courses of treatment (latest date, 19 November 2019). The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). Total and system-specific adverse events (AEs) and treatment interruption served as secondary outcomes. Negative binomial regression with generalized estimating equations (to estimate multivariate incidence rate ratios, mIRR) and frailty Cox proportional hazards models were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The number of patients enrolled was 1316 (2335 treatment courses, 6711 patient-years [PY]; 1254.5 PY on antimalarials). The overall incidence of SAEs was 9.2/100 PY. Antimalarials were associated with reduced risk of SAEs (mIRR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.68; P < 0.001), total AEs (0.68; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.81; P < 0.001), serious infections (0.53; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.84; P = 0.007) and total hepatic AEs (0.21; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.85; P = 0.028). Antimalarials were also related to better survival of treatment course (P = 0.003). There was no significant increase in the risk of cardiovascular AEs. CONCLUSION: Among RA patients on treatment with bDMARDs or JAKi, concomitant use of antimalarials was associated with reduced the incidence of serious and total AEs and with longer treatment course survival.

Retention, safety and efficacy of off-label conventional treatments and biologics for chronic calcium pyrophosphate crystal inflammatory arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Very little is known on the efficacy and safety of drugs for the management of chronic calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal inflammatory arthritis. The objectives of this work were to describe the drugs used in the management of chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis in expert European centres, and to examine treatment retention. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Charts from patients with a diagnosis of persistent inflammatory and/or recurrent acute CPP crystal arthritis were reviewed in seven European centres. Baseline characteristics were collected, and visits at months 3, 6, 12 and 24 included an assessment of treatment response and safety. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-four treatments were initiated in 129 patients. Colchicine (used first-line in n = 73/86), methotrexate (used first-line in n = 14/36), anakinra (n = 27) and tocilizumab (n = 25) were the most prescribed treatments, while long-term corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, canakinumab and sarilumab were used occasionally. The 24-month on-drug retention was higher for tocilizumab (40%) than anakinra (18.5%) (P < 0.05), while the difference between colchicine (29.1%) and methotrexate (44.4%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.10). Adverse events led to 14.1% of colchicine discontinuations (100% of diarrhoea), 4.3% for methotrexate, 31.8% for anakinra and 20% for tocilizumab; all other discontinuations were related to insufficient response or losses to follow-up. Efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly between treatments throughout follow-up. CONCLUSION: Daily colchicine is the first-line therapy used in chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis, which is considered efficient in a third to half of cases. Second-line treatments include methotrexate and tocilizumab, which have higher retention than anakinra.

Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, vs other biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) for PsA using network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review (most recent update conducted on 1 January 2023) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of b/tsDMARDs in PsA. Bayesian NMAs were conducted for efficacy outcomes at Weeks 12-24 for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients. Safety at Weeks 12-24 was analysed in a mixed population. Odds ratios (ORs) and differences of mean change with the associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated for the best-fitting models, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine relative rank. RESULTS: The NMA included 41 RCTs for 22 b/tsDMARDs. For minimal disease activity (MDA), bimekizumab ranked 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients. In b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 6th, 5th and 3rd for ACR response ACR20/50/70, respectively. In TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st, 2nd and 1st for ACR20/50/70, respectively. For Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100, bimekizumab ranked 2nd and 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, respectively, and 1st and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients, respectively. Bimekizumab was comparable to b/tsDMARDs for serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Bimekizumab ranked favourably among b/tsDMARDs for efficacy on joint, skin and MDA outcomes, and showed comparable safety, suggesting it may be a beneficial treatment option for patients with PsA.

Cancer risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with janus kinase inhibitors: a nationwide Danish register-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the risk of first primary cancer in patients with RA treated with janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) compared with those who received biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study using the nationwide registers in Denmark. Patients with RA aged 18+ years, without a previous cancer diagnosis, and who initiated treatment with JAKi or bDMARDs from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020 were followed for any cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancer). We applied inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to account for covariate differences between treatment groups. IPTW-generated weights were used with cause-specific Cox (CSC) models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer incidence in JAKi-treated compared with bDMARD-treated patients with RA. RESULTS: We identified 875 and 4247 RA patients treated with JAKi and bDMARDs, respectively. The JAKi group contributed 1315 person years (PYRS) and 19 cancers, the bDMARD group contributed 8597 PYRS and 111 cancers, with corresponding crude incidence rates per 1000 PYRS of 14.4 and 12.9. Comparing the two groups using weighted CSC models, a HR of 1.41 (95% CI 0.76, 2.37, 95% CIs) was seen for JAKi- vs bDMARD-treated patients with RA. CONCLUSION: JAKi treatment in real-world patients with RA was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of first primary cancer compared with those who received bDMARDs. However, several numerically increased risk estimates were detected, and a clinically important excess risk of cancer among JAKi recipients cannot be dismissed.

Ten-year safety and clinical benefit from open-label etanercept treatment in children and young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: CLIPPER2 was an 8-year, open-label extension of the phase 3b, 2-year CLIPPER study on the safety and efficacy of etanercept in patients with JIA, categorized as extended oligoarticular arthritis (eoJIA), enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) or PsA. METHODS: Participants with eoJIA (2-17 years old), ERA or PsA (each 12-17 years old) who received ≥1 etanercept dose (0.8 mg/kg weekly; maximum 50 mg) in CLIPPER could enter CLIPPER2. Primary end point was occurrence of malignancy. Efficacy assessments included proportions achieving JIA ACR 30/50/70/90/100 criteria and ACR inactive disease criteria, and clinical remission (ACR criteria) or Juvenile Arthritis DAS (JADAS) ≤1. RESULTS: Overall, 109/127 (86%) CLIPPER participants entered CLIPPER2 [n = 55 eoJIA, n = 31 ERA, n = 23 PsA; 99 (78%) on active treatment]; 84 (66%) completed 120 months' follow-up [32 (25%) on active treatment]. One malignancy (Hodgkin's disease in 18-year-old patient with eoJIA treated with methotrexate for 8 years) was reported; there were no cases of active tuberculosis or deaths. Numbers and incidence rates (events per 100 patient-years) of TEAEs (excluding infections/ISRs) decreased from 193 (173.81) in Year 1 to 9 (27.15) in Year 10; TE infections and serious infections also decreased. Over 45% of participants (n = 127) achieved JIA ACR50 responses from Month 2 onwards; 42 (33%) and 34 (27%) participants achieved JADAS and ACR clinical remission, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept treatment up to 10 years was well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile, with durable response in the participants still on active treatment. The benefit-risk assessment of etanercept in these JIA categories remains favourable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: CLIPPER (NCT00962741); CLIPPER2 (NCT01421069).