Survey on the working, training, and research conditions of resident physicians in internistic and rheumatological continuing education-BEWUSST.

BACKGROUND: Data on the training and continuing education situation of residents in the field of internal medicine and rheumatology are not available for Germany. For this reason, the Commission for Education and Training of the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) initiated the BEWUSST survey on the working, training and research conditions of residents in rheumatology. METHODS: A total of 102 questions on the topics of working conditions in everyday professional life, continuing medical education and training, compatibility of career and family, compatibility of work and research, perspectives as a rheumatologist and practical activities were included in an online questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 102 participants took part in the survey. Of the respondents 48.1% were satisfied with their professional situation, 40.2% of the participants were supervised by a specialist mentor and 54.9% were working as scientists during their work as a physician. A compatibility of family and career was possible for 34.7%. After completion of the residency 52.9% of the respondents aspired to a combined clinical and outpatient activity. CONCLUSION: Half of the trainee rheumatologists are satisfied with their professional activities, although mentoring of the assistants in training should be further improved. With respect to the desired combined clinical and outpatient activity, the existing options should be expanded or new professional fields of activity should be established, so that the specialty remains attractive for the upcoming generations.

[Survey on the working, training, and research conditions of resident physicians in internistic and rheumatological continuing education-BEWUSST]. / Befragung zu den Arbeits-, Weiterbildungs- und Forschungsbedingungen von Assistenzärztinnen und -ärzten in der internistisch-rheumatologischen Weiterbildung ­ BEWUSST.

BACKGROUND: Data on the training and continuing education situation of residents in the field of internal medicine and rheumatology are not available for Germany. For this reason, the Commission for Education and Training of the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) initiated the BEWUSST survey on the working, training and research conditions of residents in rheumatology. METHODS: A total of 102 questions on the topics of working conditions in everyday professional life, continuing medical education and training, compatibility of career and family, compatibility of work and research, perspectives as a rheumatologist and practical activities were included in an online questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 102 participants took part in the survey. Of the respondents 48.1% were satisfied with their professional situation, 40.2% of the participants were supervised by a specialist mentor and 54.9% were working as scientists during their work as a physician. A compatibility of family and career was possible for 34.7%. After completion of the residency 52.9% of the respondents aspired to a combined clinical and outpatient activity. CONCLUSION: Half of the trainee rheumatologists are satisfied with their professional activities, although mentoring of the assistants in training should be further improved. With respect to the desired combined clinical and outpatient activity, the existing options should be expanded or new professional fields of activity should be established, so that the specialty remains attractive for the upcoming generations.

[Rheumatology training positions in Germany]. / Rheumatologische Weiterbildungsstellen in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: In the next few years many general practitioners and specialists will retire. As in other disciplines the question arises in rheumatology whether sufficient training positions are available to maintain or expand the supply of care according to demand. Therefore, the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) has assigned its committee for education and training to review the currently available training opportunities in Germany. The aim of this work is the quantitative survey of the training capacity to become a specialist in internal medicine and rheumatology. METHODS: Within the framework of this study, a survey was conducted via the homepages of the 17 state medical associations to determine the postgraduate medical officers, their place of work and the duration of their postgraduate training capabilities. Based on the data, a nationwide survey of training positions was conducted. RESULTS: Specialized rheumatology training is established at 229 training centers in Germany, whereby data from 187 training sites were available for analysis. The training locations are distributed as followed: 52.4% clinical sector and 47.6% outpatient sector. In total, 478.4 training positions are available in Germany (clinical sector: 391.4 and outpatient sector: 87) and 17.2% of the positions (clinical sector: 11.4% and outpatient sector: 43.1%) are not occupied. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, it can be shown that most of the continuing education positions are available in the clinical sector. In contrast, half of the training positions in the outpatient area are not filled. In order to improve the training situation, it is essential to integrate outpatient colleagues into the training program. This presupposes that further training is supported or financed by the healthcare system. In this context, optimal rheumatological care must be permanently guaranteed throughout Germany in order to provide sufficient care for the approximately 2 million patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Prevention and management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: a clinical review.

The risk of herpes zoster (HZ) and HZ-related complications is increased in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) relative to the general population; therefore, HZ vaccination is recommended in these patient groups. In this literature-based review, we summarise the available evidence on the use of HZ vaccines in patients with RA and PsA, and discuss strategies for managing breakthrough infection. Currently available data show suboptimal rates of HZ vaccination among these patients and highlight a need for strategies to improve HZ vaccination programmes in clinical practice. Further clinical studies are also required to optimise the use of HZ vaccines in patients with RA and PsA, particularly with regard to determining the impact of different immunosuppressive therapy regimens on vaccine immunogenicity and, ultimately, efficacy, as well as the impact of vaccination on disease activity and safety.

Assessment of radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib in long-term studies.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. We evaluated radiographic progression in tofacitinib-treated patients with RA for up to 3 years in two pooled long-term extension (LTE) studies (ORAL Sequel; A3921041) (primary analysis), and for up to 5 years using data integrated from one phase (P)2 (A3921068), two P3 (ORAL Start; ORAL Scan) and two LTE studies (exploratory analysis). METHODS: In LTE studies, patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or 10 mg BID as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Radiographic outcomes up to 3 years: least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score (ΔmTSS), erosion score (ΔES) and joint space narrowing (ΔJSN) score; proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (ΔmTSS ≤0.5); proportion of patients with no new erosions (ΔES ≤0.5). ΔmTSS was evaluated for up to 5 years in an exploratory analysis. RESULTS: For all tofacitinib-treated patients with radiographic data available at LTE month 36 (n = 414), LSM ΔmTSS was 1.14, LSM ΔES was 0.66, LSM ΔJSN was 0.74, and 74.3% and 86.2% of patients showed no radiographic progression and no new erosions, respectively. Similar values were observed regardless of tofacitinib dose, or whether patients received tofacitinib as monotherapy or with csDMARDs. In an exploratory analysis of integrated P2/P3/LTE studies, LSM ΔmTSS was 3.34 at month 60 (n = 269). CONCLUSION: Limited progression of structural damage was observed in tofacitinib-treated patients up to 5 years, with similar results for tofacitinib used as monotherapy or combination therapy up to 3 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT01164579; NCT01039688; NCT00847613; NCT00413699; NCT00661661.

Long-term safety of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis up to 8.5†years: integrated analysis of data from the global clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We report an integrated safety summary of tofacitinib from two phase I, nine phase II, six phase III and two long-term extension studies in adult patients with active RA. METHODS: Data were pooled for all tofacitinib-treated patients (data cut-off: 31 March 2015). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with event/100 patient-years) and 95% CIs are reported for adverse events (AEs) of interest. RESULTS: 6194 patients received tofacitinib for a total 19 406 patient-years' exposure; median exposure was 3.4 patient-years. IR (95% CI) for serious AEs was 9.4 (9.0 to 9.9); IR for serious infections was 2.7 (2.5 to 3.0). IR for (all) herpes zoster was 3.9 (3.6 to 4.2); IR for disseminated or multidermatomal herpes zoster was 0.3 (0.2 to 0.4). IR for opportunistic infections (excluding tuberculosis) was 0.3 (0.2 to 0.4) and was 0.2 (0.1 to 0.3) for tuberculosis. IR for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC)) was 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0); NMSC IR was 0.6 (0.5 to 0.7). IR for gastrointestinal perforations was 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2). Analysis of IR for serious infections, herpes zoster and malignancies by 6-month intervals did not reveal any notable increase in IR with longer-duration tofacitinib exposure. CONCLUSION: This analysis of tofacitinib exposure up to 8.5 years allowed estimation of safety events with improved precision versus previous tofacitinib reports. AEs were generally stable over time; no new safety signals were observed compared with previous tofacitinib reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT00413699, NCT00661661; Results.

Partial remission in ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in treatment with infliximab plus naproxen or naproxen alone: associations between partial remission and baseline disease characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate partial remission during treatment with infliximab (IFX) + naproxen (NPX) vs NPX alone in patients from the two subgroups of SpA and explore baseline predictors of partial remission. METHODS: Infliximab as First Line Therapy in Patients with Early Active Axial Spondyloarthritis Trial was a double-blind, randomised controlled trial of IFX in biologic-naïve patients with early, active axial SpA. Patients were randomised (2:1) to receive 28 weeks of treatment with i.v. IFX 5 mg/kg (weeks 0, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24) + NPX 1000 mg/day or i.v. placebo (PBO) + NPX 1000 mg/day. The current post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes in patients who did or did not meet modified New York radiographic criteria for AS. RESULTS: The analysis included 94 patients who met AS criteria and 56 with non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA). At week 28, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) partial remission was greater with IFX + NPX than PBO + NPX for both the AS group (70.5 vs 33.3%, respectively) and the nr-axSpA group (50.0 vs 37.5%, respectively). A similar pattern occurred with several efficacy measures. Larger treatment effects occurred in the AS group than the nr-axSpA group, possibly due to baseline differences in disease characteristics. Multivariable analyses identified the type of treatment, age and HLA-B27 status as predictors of ASAS partial remission in the total study population. MRI sacroiliac joint scores were associated with partial remission during IFX + NPX treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients with AS had greater partial remission with IFX + NSAID than NSAID therapy alone; patients with nr-axSpA had a smaller treatment effect. Baseline disease characteristics and age were associated with partial remission with IFX therapy.

Prediction of remission and low disease activity in disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with golimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To create a tool to predict probability of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in patients with RA being considered for anti-TNF treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: We analysed data from GO-MORE, an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic-naïve patients with active RA (DAS28-ESR ⩾3.2) despite DMARD therapy. Patients received 50 mg s.c. golimumab (GLM) once monthly for 6 months. In secondary analyses, regression models were used to determine the best set of baseline factors to predict remission (DAS28-ESR <2.6) at month 6 and LDA (DAS28-ESR ⩽3.2) at month 1. RESULTS: In 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients, of 12 factors included in initial regression models predicting remission or LDA, six were retained in final multivariable models. Greater likelihood of LDA and remission was associated with being male; younger age; lower HAQ, ESR (or CRP) and tender joint count (or swollen joint count) scores; and absence of comorbidities. In models predicting 1-, 3- and 6-month LDA or remission, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.648-0.809 (R(2) = 0.0397-0.1078). The models also predicted 6-month HAQ and EuroQoL-5-dimension scores. A series of matrices were developed to easily show predicted rates of remission and LDA. CONCLUSION: A matrix tool was developed to show predicted GLM treatment outcomes in patients with RA, based on a combination of six baseline characteristics. The tool could help provide practical guidance in selection of candidates for anti-TNF therapy.

Maintenance of remission following 2 years of standard treatment then dose reduction with abatacept in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognosis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate maintenance of response while reducing intravenous abatacept dose from ~10 mg/kg to ~5 mg/kg in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved disease activity score (DAS)28 (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ESR) <2.6. METHODS: This 1-year, multinational, randomised, double-blind substudy evaluated the efficacy and safety of ~10 mg/kg and ~5 mg/kg abatacept in patients with early RA with poor prognosis who had reached DAS28 (ESR) <2.6 at year 2 of the AGREE study. The primary outcome was time to disease relapse (defined as additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ≥2 courses high-dose steroids, return to open-label abatacept ~10 mg/kg, or DAS28 (C reactive protein) ≥3.2 at two consecutive visits). RESULTS: 108 patients were randomised (~10 mg/kg, n=58; ~5 mg/kg, n=50). Three and five patients, respectively, discontinued, and four per group returned to open-label abatacept. Relapse over time and the proportion of patients relapsing were similar in both groups (31% (~10 mg/kg) vs 34% (~5 mg/kg); HR: 0.87 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.69)). Mean steady-state trough serum concentration for the ~10 mg/kg group was 20.3-24.1 µg/mL, compared with 8.8-12.0 µg/mL for the ~5 mg/kg group. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that abatacept dose reduction may be an option in patients with poor prognosis early RA who achieve DAS28 (ESR) <2.6 after ≥1 year on abatacept (~10 mg/kg). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00989235.

Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a heterogeneous chronic disease, and no therapeutic agent has been identified which is universally and persistently effective in all patients. We investigated the effectiveness of tofacitinib (CP-690,550), a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We did a 6-month, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study at 82 centres in 13 countries, including North America, Europe, and Latin America. 399 patients aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1:1 ratio with an automated internet or telephone system to receive twice a day treatment with: tofacitinib 5 mg (n=133); tofacitinib 10 mg (n=134); or placebo (n=132), all with methotrexate. At month 3, patients given placebo advanced to either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (n=66) or 10 mg twice a day (n=66). Primary endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rate, mean change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and rates of disease activity score (DAS)28-4(ESR) less than 2·6 (referred to as DAS28<2·6), all at month 3. The full analysis set for the primary analysis included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00960440. FINDINGS: At month 3, ACR20 response rates were 41·7% (55 of 132 [95% CI vs placebo 6·06-28·41]; p=0·0024) for tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day and 48·1% (64 of 133; [12·45-34·92]; p<0·0001) for tofacitinib 10 mg twice a day versus 24·4% (32 of 131) for placebo. Improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI were -0·43 ([-0·36 to -0·15]; p<0·0001) for 5 mg twice a day and -0·46 ([-0·38 to -0·17]; p<0·0001) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus -0·18 for placebo; DAS28<2·6 rates were 6·7% (eight of 119; [0-10·10]; p=0·0496) for 5 mg twice a day tofacitinib and 8·8% (11 of 125 [1·66-12·60]; p=0·0105) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus 1·7% (two of 120) for placebo. Safety was consistent with phase 2 and 3 studies. The most common adverse events in months 0-3 were diarrhoea (13 of 267; 4·9%), nasopharyngitis (11 of 267; 4·1%), headache (11 of 267; 4·1%), and urinary tract infection (eight of 267; 3·0%) across tofacitinib groups, and nausea (nine of 132; 6·8%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In this treatment-refractory population, tofacitinib with methotrexate had rapid and clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and physical function over 6 months with manageable safety. Tofacitinib could provide an effective treatment option in patients with an inadequate response to TNFi. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody secukinumab in treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ankylosing spondylitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease characterised by spinal inflammation, progressive spinal rigidity, and peripheral arthritis. Interleukin 17 (IL-17) is thought to be a key inflammatory cytokine in the development of ankylosing spondylitis, the prototypical form of spondyloarthritis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the anti-IL-17A monoclonal antibody secukinumab in treating patients with active ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: We did a randomised double-blind proof-of-concept study at eight centres in Europe (four in Germany, two in the Netherlands, and two in the UK). Patients aged 18-65 years were randomly assigned (in a 4:1 ratio) to either intravenous secukinumab (2×10 mg/kg) or placebo, given 3 weeks apart. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated block randomisation list without a stratification process. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with a 20% response according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for improvement (ASAS20) at week 6 (Bayesian analysis). Safety was assessed up to week 28. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00809159. FINDINGS: 37 patients with moderate-to-severe ankylosing spondylitis were screened, and 30 were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous secukinumab (n=24) or placebo (n=6). The final efficacy analysis included 23 patients receiving secukinumab and six patients receiving placebo, and the safety analysis included all 30 patients. At week 6, ASAS20 response estimates were 59% on secukinumab versus 24% on placebo (99·8% probability that secukinumab is superior to placebo). One serious adverse event (subcutaneous abscess caused by Staphylococcus aureus) occurred in the secukinumab-treated group. INTERPRETATION: Secukinumab rapidly reduced clinical or biological signs of active ankylosing spondylitis and was well tolerated. It is the first targeted therapy that we know of that is an alternative to tumour necrosis factor inhibition to reach its primary endpoint in a phase 2 trial. FUNDING: Novartis.

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor.

OBJECTIVES: Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, regulates inflammatory mediators. Psoriatic Arthritis Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy 1 (PALACE 1) compared apremilast with placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite prior traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and/or biologic therapy. METHODS: In the 24-week, placebo-controlled phase of PALACE 1, patients (N=504) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day (BID) or apremilast 30 mg BID. At week 16, patients without ≥20% reduction in swollen and tender joint counts were required to be re-randomised equally to either apremilast dose if initially randomised to placebo or remained on their initial apremilast dose. Patients on background concurrent DMARDs continued stable doses (methotrexate, leflunomide and/or sulfasalazine). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 16. RESULTS: At week 16, significantly more apremilast 20 mg BID (31%) and 30 mg BID (40%) patients achieved ACR20 versus placebo (19%) (p<0.001). Significant improvements in key secondary measures (physical function, psoriasis) were evident with both apremilast doses versus placebo. Across outcome measures, the 30-mg group generally had higher and more consistent response rates, although statistical comparison was not conducted. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and generally occurred early, were self-limiting and infrequently led to discontinuation. No imbalance in major adverse cardiac events, serious or opportunistic infections, malignancies or laboratory abnormalities was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast was effective in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, improving signs and symptoms and physical function. Apremilast demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and was generally well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01172938.

Efficacy and safety of secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis: a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II proof-of-concept trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab, a fully human, anti-interleukin (IL)-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: 42 patients with active PsA fulfilling ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive two intravenous secukinumab doses (10 mg/kg; n=28) or placebo (n=14) 3 weeks apart. The primary endpoint was the proportion of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses at week 6 for secukinumab versus placebo (one-sided p<0.1). RESULTS: Primary endpoint: ACR20 responses at week 6 were 39% (9/23) for secukinumab versus 23% (3/13) for placebo (p=0.27). ACR20 responses were greater with secukinumab versus placebo at week 12 (39% (9/23) vs 15% (2/13), p=0.13) and week 24 (43% (10/23) vs 18% (2/11), p= 0.14). At week 6, 'good' European League Against Rheumatism response was seen in 21.7% (5/23) secukinumab versus 9.1% (1/11) placebo patients. Compared with placebo at week 6, significant reductions were observed among secukinumab recipients for C reactive protein (p=0.039), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p=0.038), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (p=0.002) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; p=0.030) scores. The overall adverse event (AE) frequency was comparable between secukinumab (26 (93%)) and placebo (11 (79%)) recipients. Six serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in four secukinumab patients and one SAE in one placebo patient. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary endpoint was not met, clinical responses, acute-phase reactant and quality of life improvements were greater with secukinumab versus placebo, suggesting some clinical benefit. Secukinumab exhibited satisfactory safety. Larger clinical trials of secukinumab in PsA are warranted.

Efficacy and safety of golimumab as add-on therapy to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results of the GO-MORE study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous golimumab as add-on therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment. To evaluate an intravenous plus subcutaneous (IV+SC) golimumab strategy in patients who had not attained remission. METHODS: GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in patients with active RA in typical clinical practice settings. In part 1, patients received add-on monthly 50-mg subcutaneous golimumab for 6 months. The percentage of patients with good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) response was compared in patient subgroups with various concurrent or previous DMARD treatments. In part 2, patients with EULAR responses but not remission were randomly assigned to receive IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab to month 12; DAS28-ESR remission was measured. RESULTS: 3366 patients were enrolled. At baseline of part 1, 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients had mean disease duration of 7.6 years and mean DAS28-ESR of 5.97 (SD=1.095). At month 6, 82.1% achieved good/moderate EULAR responses and 23.9% attained remission. When EULAR responses were analysed by the number of previously failed DMARD or the concomitant methotrexate dose, DMARD type, or corticosteroid use, no statistically significant differences were observed. Part 2 patients (N=490) who received IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab achieved similar remission rates (∼25%). Adverse events were consistent with previous reports of golimumab and other tumour necrosis antagonists in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on monthly subcutaneous golimumab resulted in good/moderate EULAR response in most patients; 25% achieved remission after 6 more months of golimumab, but an IV+SC regimen provided no additional efficacy over the subcutaneous regimen.

German guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The German Society of Rheumatology approved new German guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of RA published in 2010. An update of the EULAR systematic literature research was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Meta-analyses, controlled trials, cohort studies, and registry data addressing traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids, and treatment strategies published between January 2009 and August 2011 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated and compared the additional data that had been published after the time limit set by the EULAR recommendations. A national guideline working group developed an adapted set of recommendations. The new German guidelines were accepted by vote using an informal Delphi approach. Twelve recommendations and the resulting updated treatment algorithm were developed and approved as a practical orientation for rheumatologists. These recommendations are based on a successive treatment with traditional and biologic disease-modifying drugs depending on the individual progress of the disease and distinct patient characteristics. The German guidelines have been developed on the basis of the internationally well-recognized EULAR recommendations. In addition, more recent evidence from a systematic literature research was considered. They have been developed and approved by a group of national experts aiming at guidance for rheumatologists to reach best medical practice.

Determinants of tofacitinib discontinuation in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis during long-term extension studies up to 9.5 years.

Objectives: To examine determinants of tofacitinib discontinuation due to voluntary (i.e. patient-driven) or involuntary reasons (i.e. protocol mandated) in long-term extension (LTE) studies of patients with RA to inform clinical practice, clinical study execution and data capture. Methods: This post hoc analysis used pooled data from patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) in LTE studies. Outcomes included time to voluntary/involuntary discontinuation (and baseline predictors), including by geographic region. Exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) were calculated for adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs) and discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs. Results: Of 4967 patients, 2463 (49.6%) discontinued [1552/4967 (31.2%) voluntarily, 911/4967 (18.3%) involuntarily] and 55 (1.1%) died over the course of 9.5 years. When involuntary discontinuation was present as a competing risk for voluntary discontinuation, patients who stayed on combination therapy and with higher patient-assessed pain were significantly more likely to discontinue for voluntary reasons (P < 0.05). Older patients, those enrolled in Asia, Europe or Latin America (vs USA or Canada) or with RF+/anti-CCP+ status were significantly less likely to discontinue for voluntary reasons (P < 0.05). Small numeric differences in disease activity were observed between geographic regions in patients who discontinued or completed the studies. EAERs were generally higher for tofacitinib 10 vs 5 mg BID, irrespective of discontinuation reason. Conclusion: The factors associated with voluntary/involuntary discontinuation of tofacitinib suggest that treatment persistence in RA studies is partly predictable, which may be reflected in clinical practice. Applying these results may improve our understanding of attrition and inform future study design/execution. Trial registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT00413699 and NCT00661661.

Oral apremilast in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast, a novel, orally available small molecule that specifically targets phosphodiesterase 4, in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: This phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included the following: a 12-week treatment phase, with patients receiving placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice per day, or apremilast 40 mg once per day; a 12-week treatment-extension phase, with patients in the placebo group re-randomized to receive apremilast; and a 4-week observational phase after treatment cessation. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory parameters, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Of the 204 patients with PsA who were randomized to a treatment group, 165 completed the treatment phase. At the end of the treatment phase (week 12), 43.5% of patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day (P < 0.001) and 35.8% of those receiving 40 mg once per day (P = 0.002) achieved an ACR20 response, compared with 11.8% of those receiving placebo. At the end of the treatment-extension phase (week 24), >40% of patients in each group (patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day, patients receiving apremilast 40 mg once per day, and patients in the placebo group re-randomized to receive apremilast) achieved the ACR20 level of improvement. Most patients in the treatment phase (84.3%) and treatment-extension phase (68.3%) reported ≥ 1 AE. Diarrhea, headache, nausea, fatigue, and nasopharyngitis were reported most frequently; most events were mild or moderate. No clinically relevant laboratory or electrocardiographic abnormalities were reported. CONCLUSION: Treatment with apremilast at a dosage of 20 mg twice per day or 40 mg once per day demonstrated efficacy in comparison with placebo and was generally well tolerated in patients with active PsA. The balance of efficacy, tolerability, and safety supports further study of apremilast in PsA.

Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who have previous experience with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results of a long-term extension of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled GO-AFTER study through week 160.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess long-term golimumab therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued previous tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitor(s) for any reason. METHODS: Results through week 24 of this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of active RA (≥4 tender, ≥4 swollen joints) were previously reported. Patients received placebo (Group 1), 50 mg golimumab (Group 2) or 100 mg golimumab (Group 3) subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks. Patients from Groups 1 and 2 with <20% improvement in tender/swollen joints at week 16 early escaped to golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively. At week 24, Group 1 patients crossed over to golimumab 50 mg, Group 2 continued golimumab 50/100 mg per escape status and Group 3 maintained dosing. Data through week 160 are reported. RESULTS: 459 of the 461 randomised patients were treated; 236/459 (51%) continued treatment through week 160. From week 24 to week 100, ACR20 (≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria) response and ≥0.25 unit HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) improvement were sustained in 70-73% and 75-81% of responding patients, respectively. Overall at week 160, 63%, 67% and 57% of patients achieved ACR20 response and 59%, 65% and 64% had HAQ improvement ≥0.25 unit in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Adjusted for follow-up duration, adverse event incidences (95% CI) per 100 patient-years among patients treated with golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg were 4.70 (2.63 to 7.75) and 8.07 (6.02 to 10.58) for serious infection, 0.95 (0.20 to 2.77) and 2.04 (1.09 to 3.49) for malignancy and 0.00 (0.00 to 0.94) and 0.62 (0.17 to 1.59) for death, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with active RA who discontinued previous TNF-antagonist treatment, golimumab 50 and 100 mg injections every 4 weeks yielded sustained improvements in signs/symptoms and physical function in ∼57-67% of patients who continued treatment. Golimumab safety was consistent with other anti-TNF agents, although definitive conclusions regarding long-term safety require further monitoring.