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.

Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants for immune-related adverse events and checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate an association between immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and impaired survival in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Whether this is related to corticosteroids or second-line immunosuppressants is unknown. In the largest cohort thus far, we assessed the association of immunosuppressant type and dose with survival in melanoma patients with irAEs. METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma who received immunosuppressants for irAEs induced by first-line anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA-4 were included from 18 hospitals worldwide. Associations of cumulative and peak dose corticosteroids and use of second-line immunosuppression with survival from start of immunosuppression were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: Among 606 patients, 404 had anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-related irAEs and 202 had anti-PD-1-related irAEs. 425 patients (70 %) received corticosteroids only; 181 patients (30 %) additionally received second-line immunosuppressants. Median PFS and OS from starting immunosuppression were 4.5 (95 %CI 3.4-8.1) and 31 (95 %CI 15-not reached) months in patients who received second-line immunosuppressants, and 11 (95 %CI 9.4-14) and 55 (95 %CI 41-not reached) months in patients who did not. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS and OS (HRadj 1.14; 95 %CI 1.01-1.29; HRadj 1.29; 95 %CI 1.12-1.49 for 80vs40mg), while cumulative dose was not. Second-line immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (HRadj 1.32; 95 %CI 1.02-1.72) and OS (HRadj 1.34; 95 %CI 0.99-1.82) compared with corticosteroids alone. CONCLUSIONS: High corticosteroid peak dose and second-line immunosuppressants to treat irAEs are both associated with impaired survival. While immunosuppression is indispensable for treatment of severe irAEs, clinicians should weigh possible detrimental effects on survival against potential disadvantages of undertreatment.

Factors associated with non-adherence to medications in systemic lupus erythematosus: Results from a Swedish survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify determinants of medication non-adherence in a Swedish population of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Patients with SLE from Karolinska and Örebro University Hospitals participated in a survey-based cross-sectional study. Demographics, disease activity, organ damage, HRQoL (LupusQol, EQ-5D-5 L), medication non-adherence (<80% on CQR-19 or MASRI) and beliefs about medicines (BMQ) were registered. MASRI was used to report adherence to different drugs/drug classes, categorised into (i) antimalarial agents (AMA), (ii) glucocorticoids and (iii) other SLE medications. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, disease activity and organ damage. RESULTS: Among 205 respondents, the median age was 52.0 years (IQR: 34.0-70.0), 86.3% were women, 66.8% were non-adherent to their medications according to CQR-19, and 6.6% and 6.3% were non-adherent to AMA and glucocorticoids, respectively, according to MASRI. Positive beliefs about glucocorticoids (OR; 95% CI: 0.77; 0.59-0.99; p = .039) and medications overall (0.71; 0.52-0.97; p = .029) were protective against non-adherence to glucocorticoids. Anxiety/depression (3.09; 1.12-8.54; p = .029), medication concerns (1.12; 1.05-1.20; p < .001) and belief that medications are overused (1.30; 1.15-1.46; p < .001) or harmful (1.36; 1.19-1.56; p < .001) were associated with medication non-adherence (CQR-19); beliefs in the necessity of medications (0.73; 0.65-0.82; p < .001) and positive beliefs in medications were protective (0.72; 0.60-0.86; p < .001). No associations were found between other investigated factors and medication non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about medications were a major determinant of medication non-adherence. Patient education may help alleviate the negative impact of misinformation/unawareness on adherence.

The serological immunogenicity of the third and fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases on different biologic or targeted DMARDs: a Swedish nationwide study (COVID-19-REUMA).

Studies investigating the immunogenicity of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are still limited. The objective was to explore the antibody response including response to omicron virus subvariants (sBA.1 and sBS.2) after third and fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses in Swedish IRD patients treated with immunomodulating drugs compared to controls. Antibody levels to spike wild-type antigens (full-length protein and S1) and the omicron variants sBA.1 and sBA.2 (full-length proteins) were measured. A positive response was defined as having antibody levels over cut-off or ≥fourfold increase in post-vaccination levels for both antigens. Patients with arthritis, vasculitis, and other autoimmune diseases (n = 414), and controls (n = 61) receiving biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with or without conventional synthetic DMARDs participated. Of these, blood samples were available for 370 patients and 52 controls after three doses, and 65 patients and 15 controls after four doses. Treatment groups after three vaccine doses were rituximab (n = 133), abatacept (n = 22), IL6r inhibitors (n = 71), JAnus Kinase inhibitors (JAK-inhibitors) (n = 56), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-inhibitors) (n = 61), IL12/23/17 inhibitors (n = 27), and controls (n = 52). The percentage of responders after three and four vaccine doses was lower in rituximab-treated patients (59% and 57%) compared to controls (100%) (P < 0.001). After three doses, the percentage of responders in all other groups was 100%, including response to omicron sBA.1 and sBA.2. In rituximab-treated patients, higher baseline immunoglobulin G (IgG) and longer time-period between rituximab and vaccination predicted better response. In this Swedish nationwide study including IRD patients three and four COVID-19 vaccine doses were immunogenic in patients treated with IL6r inhibitors, TNF-inhibitors, JAK-inhibitors, and IL12/23/17-inhibitors but not in rituximab. As >50% of rituximab patients responded to vaccines including omicron subvariants, these patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. IMPORTANCE: Results from this study provide further evidence that additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines are immunogenic and result in satisfactory antibody response in a majority of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) receiving potent immunomodulating treatments such as biological or targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) given as monotherapy or combined with traditional DMARDs. We observed that rituximab treatment, both as monotherapy and combined with csDMARDs, impaired antibody response, and only roughly 50% of patients developed a satisfactory antibody response including response to omicron subvariants after the third vaccine. In addition, higher IgG levels at the last rituximab course before the third vaccine dose and a longer time after the last rituximab treatment increased the chance of a satisfactory antibody response. These results indicate that rituximab-treated patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. CLINICAL TRIALS: EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) with number 2021-000880-63.

Anakinra or tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe covid-19 at high risk of deterioration (IMMCoVA): A randomized, controlled, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Anakinra and tocilizumab are used for severe Covid-19, but only one previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has studied both. We performed a multi-center RCT comparing anakinra or tocilizumab versus usual care (UC) for adults at high risk of deterioration. METHODS: The study was conducted June 2020 to March 2021. Eligibility required ≥ 5 liters/minute of Oxygen to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation at ≥ 93%, CRP > 70 mg/L, ferritin > 500 µg/L and at least two points where one point was awarded for lymphocytes < 1x 109/L; D-dimer ≥ 0.5 mg/L and; lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 8 microkatal/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive either a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or anakinra 100 mg IV QID for seven days or UC alone. The primary outcome was time to recovery. RESULTS: Recruitment was ended prematurely when tocilizumab became part of usual care. Out of a planned 195 patients, 77 had been randomized, 27 to UC, 28 to anakinra and 22 to tocilizumab. Median time to recovery was 15, 15 and 11 days. Rate ratio for recovery for UC vs anakinra was 0.91, 0.47 to 1.78, 95% [CI], p = 0.8 and for UC vs tocilizumab 1.13, 0.55 to 2.30; p = 0.7. There were non-significant trends favoring tocilizumab (and to limited degree anakinra) vs UC for some secondary outcomes. Safety profiles did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Premature closure of trial precludes firm conclusions. Anakinra or tocilizumab did not significantly shorten time to clinical recovery compared to usual care. (IMMCoVA, NCT04412291, EudraCT: 2020-00174824).

Are JAKis more effective among elderly patients with RA, smokers and those with higher cardiovascular risk? A comparative effectiveness study of b/tsDMARDs in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the relative effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis differ by the presence or absence of risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease, age, sex and smoking. METHODS: Through Swedish registers, we identified 13 493 individuals with 3166 JAKi, 5575 non-TNFi and 11 286 TNFi treatment initiations 2016-2022. All lines of therapy were included, with the majority in second line or higher. Treatment response was defined as the proportion reaching European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) good response and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission, respectively, within 6 months. Crude percentage point differences in these proportions (JAKis, and non-TNFis, vs TNFis) overall and by risk factors were observed, and adjusted for confounders using linear regression models. Predicted probabilities of response and remission were estimated from adjusted Poisson models, and presented across CV risk and age. RESULTS: Overall, adjusted percentage point differences indicated higher response (+5.0%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.9%) and remission (+5.8%, 95% CI 3.2% to 8.5%) with JAKis versus TNFis. The adjusted percentage point differences for response in those above 65, at elevated CV risk, and smokers were +5.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 9.0%), +8.3% (95% CI 5.3% to 11.4%) and +6.0% (95% CI 3.3% to 8.7%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for remission were +8.0% (95% CI 5.3% to 10.8%), +5.6% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.2%) and +7.6% (95% CI 5.5% to 9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: As used in clinical practice, response and remission at 6 months with JAKis are higher than with TNFi. Among patients with risk factors of concern, effectiveness is similar or numerically further increased. For individualised benefit-to-risk ratios to guide treatment choice, safety and effectiveness in specific patient segments should be considered.

Intracardiac Thrombi in Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet in Two Swedish Patients.

Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet (MAB) is an inflammatory disease typically manifesting with oral and genital aphthosis, erythema nodosum, and vasculopathy, and in only around 2%, cardiac involvement. Its prevalence is usually higher along the historic Silk Road, but rarer in Scandinavia where 0.64-4.9 in 100,000 people are affected. We herein present two Swedish patients with cardiac manifestations of Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet. Along with the intracardial thrombi, which both patients presented with, one patient also had cerebrovascular insults leading to visual field deficits as well as involvement of peripheral nerves. Being of Scandinavian origin and showing uncommon symptoms as their initial manifestations of MAB, the 62- and 35-year-old patients presenting herein constitute rare cases.

Points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: results from an umbrella review and international Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Following EULAR procedures, an international task force was formed, consisting of 13 experts in rheumatology, epidemiology and pharmacology from seven European countries. Twelve strategies for cost-effective use of b/tsDMARDs were identified through individual and group discussion. For each strategy, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant English-language systematic reviews and, for six strategies, additionally for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirty systematic reviews and 21 RCTs were included. Based on the evidence, a set of overarching principles and points to consider was formulated by the task force using a Delphi procedure. Level of evidence (1a-5) and grade (A-D) were determined for each point to consider. Individual voting on the level of agreement (LoA; between 0 (completely disagree) and 10 (completely agree)) was performed anonymously. RESULTS: The task force agreed on five overarching principles. For 10 of 12 strategies, the evidence was sufficient to formulate one or more points to consider, leading to 20 in total, regarding response prediction, drug formulary use, biosimilars, loading doses, low-dose initial therapy, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, route of administration, medication adherence, disease activity-guided dose optimisation and non-medical drug switching. Ten points to consider (50%) were supported by level 1 or 2 evidence. The mean LoA (SD) varied between 7.9 (1.2) and 9.8 (0.4). CONCLUSION: These points to consider can be used in rheumatology practices and complement inflammatory rheumatic disease treatment guidelines to incorporate cost-effectiveness in b/tsDMARD treatment.

Original research on Behçet's syndrome: a bibliometric analysis over 20 years (2000-2019).

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of original research articles on Behçet's syndrome (BS) published over the last 20 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to systematically describe their characteristics and citation records. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for any article published on BS between 2000 and 2019. We identified all original research articles and categorised them by country of origin and type of research, i.e., clinical, translational and basic. Each article's impact was assessed using the individual citation numbers from Google Scholar search engine; we also calculated the median annual citation rates (ACRs), both per country and research type. RESULTS: Of a total of 2,381 retrieved original articles from 51 countries, the majority reported on clinical (52.6%), followed by translational (46.0%) and basic research (1.4%). Turkey had the highest number of publications (39% of articles) followed by four countries (Korea, China, Japan, Italy) where BS is also relatively prevalent. However, regarding median ACRs, France was first, followed by the United Kingdom, Germany and Collaboration. Although the number of articles has almost doubled between 2010-2019 versus 2000-2009, median ACRs across either clinical or translational research had a downwards trend. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers from countries where BS is prevalent are more productive, albeit their work is of lower impact compared to countries with generally higher research budgets. A considerable increase of original research articles on BS is observed over time but further funding may be warranted for a parallel increase in the respective scientific impact.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

Risk of lung cancer in rheumatoid arthritis and in relation to autoantibody positivity and smoking.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is a common malignancy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Since smoking is a risk factor for both (seropositive) RA and lung cancer, it remains unclear whether RA, in itself, increases lung cancer risk. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of patients with RA and individually matched general population reference individuals identified in Swedish registers and from the Epidemiological Investigation of RA early RA study, prospectively followed for lung cancer occurrence 1995-2018. We calculated incidence rates and performed Cox regression to estimate HRs including 95% CIs of lung cancer, taking smoking and RA serostatus into account. RESULTS: Overall, we included 44 101 patients with RA (590 incident lung cancers, 56 per 100 000), and 216 495 matched general population individuals (1691 incident lung cancers, 33 per 100 000), corresponding to a crude HR (95% CI) of 1.76 (1.60 to 1.93). In subset analyses, this increased risk remained after adjustment for smoking (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.97). Compared with general population subjects who were never smokers, patients with RA who were ever smokers had almost seven times higher risk of lung cancer. In RA, seropositivity was a significant lung cancer risk factor, even when adjusted for smoking, increasing the incidence 2-6 times. At 20 years, the risk in patients with RA was almost 3%, overall and over 4% for patients who were ever smokers and had at least one RA autoantibody. CONCLUSIONS: Seropositive RA is a risk factor for lung cancer over and above what can be explained by smoking, although residual confounding by smoking or other airway exposures cannot be formally excluded. There is a need for increased awareness and potentially for regular lung cancer screening, at least in a subset of patients with RA.

Development and external validation of prediction models for adverse health outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: A multinational real-world cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Identification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at high risk of adverse health outcomes remains a major challenge. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy. METHODS: Data from 15 claims and electronic health record databases across 9 countries were used. Models were developed and internally validated on Optum® De-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database using L1-regularized logistic regression to estimate the risk of adverse health outcomes within 3 months (leukopenia, pancytopenia, infection), 2 years (myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke), and 5 years (cancers [colorectal, breast, uterine] after treatment initiation. Candidate predictors included demographic variables and past medical history. Models were externally validated on all other databases. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. FINDINGS: Models were developed and internally validated on 21,547 RA patients and externally validated on 131,928 RA patients. Models for serious infection (AUC: internal 0.74, external ranging from 0.62 to 0.83), MI (AUC: internal 0.76, external ranging from 0.56 to 0.82), and stroke (AUC: internal 0.77, external ranging from 0.63 to 0.95), showed good discrimination and adequate calibration. Models for the other outcomes showed modest internal discrimination (AUC < 0.65) and were not externally validated. INTERPRETATION: We developed and validated prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line MTX monotherapy. Final models for serious infection, MI, and stroke demonstrated good performance across multiple databases and can be studied for clinical use. FUNDING: This activity under the European Health Data & Evidence Network (EHDEN) has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 806968. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA.

Comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced arthritis and reactive arthritis to inform therapeutic strategy.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) is a relatively new disease entity caused by ICI agents during cancer therapy. Reactive arthritis (ReA) is a well-known disease entity caused by urogenital or gastrointestinal bacterial infection or pneumonia. In this sense, ICI-IA and ReA are both defined by a reaction to a well-specified causal event. As a result, comparing these diseases may help to determine therapeutic strategies. METHODS: We compared ICI-IA and ReA with special focus on pharmacological management. Specifically regarding treatment, we conducted a literature search of studies published in the PubMed database. Inclusion criteria were studies on treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GC), or disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in ICI-IA or ReA. During systematic selection, 21 studies evaluating ICI-IA and 14 studies evaluating ReA were included. RESULTS: In ICI-IA, prospective and retrospective studies have shown effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoid (GC), sulfasalazine (SSZ), methotrexate (MTX), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and TNFi. In ReA, retrospective studies evaluated NSAIDs and GC. A randomized controlled trial reported the effect of SSZ, and a retrospective study reported the effect of MTX and SSZ in combination with tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition (TNFi). For both entities, small case reports show treatment effects of interleukin 6 receptor inhibition (IL-6Ri). DISCUSSION: This literature review identified both similarities and differences regarding the pathogenesis and clinical features of ReA and ICI-IA. Studies on treatment reported effectiveness of NSAIDs, GC, MTX, SSZ and TNFi in both diseases. Further, small case reports showed effects of IL-6Ri.

Effectiveness of baricitinib and tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs in RA: results from a cohort study using nationwide Swedish register data.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of baricitinib and tofacitinib by Swedish RA patients and to compare their effectiveness with that of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). METHODS: RA patients who initiated baricitinib (n = 1420), tofacitinib (n = 316), abatacept (n = 1050), IL-6 inhibitors (IL-6is; n = 849), rituximab (n = 1101) or TNF inhibitors (TNFis; n = 6036) between January 2017 and November 2019 were followed for a minimum of 1 year using data from several linked Swedish national registers. Proportions reaching a good EULAR 28-joint DAS (DAS28) response, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) improvement >0.2 units and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission were compared at 1 year, imputing discontinued treatments as 'non-response'. Additionally, we compared drug retention and changes in DAS28, HAQ-DI and CDAI from baseline to 3 months after treatment initiation. RESULTS: On average, baricitinib, and particularly tofacitinib, were initiated as later lines of therapy and more frequently as monotherapy compared with rituximab and TNFi. Adjusted 1 year response proportions were consistently lower on TNFi compared with baricitinib, with differences of -4.3 percentage points (95% CI -8.7, 0.1) for good EULAR response, -9.9 (-14.4 to -5.4) for HAQ-DI improvement and -6.0 (-9.8 to -2.2) for CDAI remission. Comparisons with non-TNFi bDMARDs also favoured baricitinib, but not consistently. Treatment responses for tofacitinib were only marginally lower than those for baricitinib and generally similar to those of bDMARDs, with precision limited by low power. Comparisons of drug retention and changes in disease activity from baseline to 3 months supported the 1 year findings. CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib and tofacitinib showed at least equivalent effectiveness compared with bDMARDs after exploring several different effectiveness measures.

Comparison of treatment retention of originator vs biosimilar products in clinical rheumatology practice in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment retention between biosimilars and their originator products among first starters (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab and rituximab), as well as after non-medical switch. METHODS: Patients with rheumatic diseases starting, for the first time, an originator or biosimilar etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab or rituximab were identified in the national Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. Moreover, patients switching from an originator to its biosimilar were identified and individually matched to patients continuing on the originator. One-year treatment retention was calculated and hazard ratios (HR) for discontinuation with 95% CIs were estimated, adjusting for comorbidities and socio-economic factors. RESULTS: In total, 21 443 first treatment courses were identified. The proportion of patients still on the drug at 1 year and the HR for discontinuation revealed no differences across adalimumab (Humira, Imraldi, Amgevita and Hyrimoz) nor across rituximab products (Mabthera, Ritemvia/Truxima and Rixathon). The proportions on the drug at 1 year were similar for Benepali (77%) and Enbrel (75%) and the adjusted HR for Benepali compared with Enbrel was 0.91 (95% CI 0.83, 0.99). For infliximab, the proportion still on the drug at 1 year was 67% for Remicade and 66% for Remsima/Inflectra and the HR compared with Remicade was 1.16 (95% CI 1.02, 1.33). Among 2925 patients switching from an originator drug to one of its biosimilars, we noted no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in drug survival compared with those who remained on originator therapy. CONCLUSION: This large observational study supports the equivalence of biologic DMARD biosimilar products and originators when used in routine rheumatology care.

The occurrence of multiple treatment switches in axial spondyloarthritis. Results from five Nordic rheumatology registries.

OBJECTIVES: In axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), switching between multiple biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts-) DMARDs might indicate difficult-to-treat disease. We aimed to explore the occurrence of multiple switching in routine care axSpA patients using various definitions, and to identify associated clinical characteristics upon start of first b/tsDMARD (baseline). METHODS: Observational cohort study including patients with axSpA starting a first-ever b/tsDMARD 2009-2018 based on data from five biologic registries (Denmark/Sweden/Finland/Norway/Iceland). Comorbidities and extra-articular manifestations were identified through linkage to national registries. Multi-switching was defined in overlapping categories according to b/tsDMARD treatment history: treatment with ≥3, ≥4 or ≥5 b/tsDMARDs during follow-up. We explored the cumulative incidence of patients becoming multi-switchers with ≥3 b/tsDMARDs stratified by calendar-period (2009-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2018). In the subgroup of patients starting a first b/tsDMARD 2009-2015, baseline characteristics associated with multi-switching (within 3 years' follow-up) were explored using multiple logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Among 8398 patients included, 6056 patients (63% male, median age 42 years) started a first b/tsDMARD in 2009-2015, whereof proportions treated with ≥3, ≥4 or ≥5 b/tsDMARDs within 3 years' follow-up were 8%, 3% and 1%, respectively. Calendar-period did not affect the cumulative incidence of multi-switching. Baseline characteristics associated with multi-switching (≥3 b/tsDMARDs) were female gender, shorter disease duration, higher patient global score, comorbidities and having psoriasis but not uveitis. CONCLUSION: In this large Nordic observational cohort of axSpA patients, multiple switching was frequent with no apparent time-trend. Clinical associated factors included gender, but also previous comorbidities and extra-articular manifestations illustrating the ongoing challenge of treating this patient group.

Using Autoantibodies to Diagnose Systemic Autoimmune Diseases Triggered by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Clinical Perspective.

Immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), have significantly advanced the treatment of cancer and other conditions. However, these therapies can also cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are unintended side effects due to their effects on the immune system of the treated patient. These effects can be classified as organ-specific or systemic, with the latter being of particular interest due to their potential overlap with systemic autoimmune diseases (SADs). Autoantibodies, which are proteins produced by the immune system that react with self components, are often used to diagnose and classify SAD. However, the diagnostic value of autoantibodies in the context of systemic irAEs (sirAEs) triggered by ICIs is not well understood. This review aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of conventional autoantibodies in the identification and classification of sirAEs. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using the PubMed database, with a focus on articles published in the past 10 years. The results of the review suggest that, although autoantibodies can be useful in the diagnosis and classification of some SAD triggered by ICIs, there is a clear predominance of seronegative irAEs. The lack of traditional autoantibodies may suggest a unique mechanism for sirAEs and increases the already complex diagnostic approach of these manifestations, requiring evaluation by multidisciplinary teams with extensive experience in immunomediated diseases. Further research is needed to fully understand the diagnostic value of autoantibodies in this context and to determine the optimal approach for their detection and interpretation.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with inflammatory joint diseases in Sweden: from infection severity to impact on care provision.

OBJECTIVES: To compare risks for COVID-19-related outcomes in inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) and across disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) during the first two waves of the pandemic and to assess effects of the pandemic on rheumatology care provision. METHODS: Through nationwide multiregister linkages and cohort study design, we defined IJD and DMARD use annually in 2015-2020. We assessed absolute and relative risks of hospitalisation or death listing COVID-19. We also assessed the incidence of IJD and among individuals with IJD, rheumatologist visits, DMARD use and incidence of selected comorbidities. RESULTS: Based on 115 317 patients with IJD in 2020, crude risks of hospitalisation and death listing COVID-19 (0.94% and 0.33% across both waves, respectively) were similar during both waves (adjusted HR versus the general population 1.33, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.43, for hospitalisation listing COVID-19; 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40 for death listing COVID-19). Overall, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs)/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) did not increase risks of COVID-19 related hospitalisation (with the exception of a potential signal for JAK inhibitors) or death. During the pandemic, decreases were observed for IJD incidence (-7%), visits to rheumatology units (-16%), DMARD dispensations (+6.5% for bDMARD/tsDMARDs and -8.5% for conventional synthetic DMARDs compared with previous years) and for new comorbid conditions, but several of these changes were part of underlying secular trends. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IJD are at increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes, which may partially be explained by medical conditions other than IJD per se. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has exerted measurable effects on aspects of rheumatology care provision demonstrated, the future impact of which will need to be assessed.