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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality in patients with inflammatory joint diseases and in the general population: a nationwide Swedish cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate absolute and relative risks for all-cause mortality and for severe COVID-19 in inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) and with antirheumatic therapies. METHODS: Through Swedish nationwide multiregister linkages, we selected all adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=53 455 in March 2020), other IJDs (here: spondyloarthropathies, psoriatic arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, n=57 112), their antirheumatic drug use, and individually matched population referents. We compared annual all-cause mortality March-September 2015 through 2020 within and across cohorts, and assessed absolute and relative risks for hospitalisation, admission to intensive care and death due to COVID-19 March-September 2020, using Cox regression. RESULTS: During March-September 2020, the absolute all-cause mortality in RA and in other IJDs was higher than 2015-2019, but relative risks versus the general population (around 2 and 1.5) remained similar during 2020 compared with 2015-2019. Among patients with IJD, the risks of hospitalisation (0.5% vs 0.3% in their population referents), admission to intensive care (0.04% vs 0.03%) and death (0.10% vs 0.07%) due to COVID-19 were low. Antirheumatic drugs were not associated with increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes, although for certain drugs, precision was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of severe COVID-19-related outcomes were increased among patients with IJDs, but risk increases were also seen for non-COVID-19 morbidity. Overall absolute and excess risks are low and the level of risk increases are largely proportionate to those in the general population, and explained by comorbidities. With possible exceptions, antirheumatic drugs do not have a major impact on these risks.

Validation of new classification criteria of rheumatoid arthritis in an international multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Early identification of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is essential to allow prompt therapy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of the newly proposed ERA criteria, compared to the 1987 ACR and 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria in an international multicentre study. METHODS: A total of 606 patients with disease duration ≤2 years and age ≥16 years who were diagnosed as RA or non-RA were enrolled from China, Sweden and India. The clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, likelihood ratio (LR), and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of three criteria in these cohorts. Concordance between the three criteria was calculated with the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Three hundred and twelve RA and 294 non-RA patients were included. The Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (ERA) criteria had significantly higher specificity compared to the 2010 ACR/ EULAR criteria (83.7% vs. 78.2%, p=0.02) and sensitivity were similar (79.2% vs. 78.5%, p=0.883). In comparison with the 1987 ACR criteria, the ERA criteria had higher sensitivity (79.2% vs. 54.5%, p<0.001) but lower specificity (83.7% vs. 89.1%, p<0.001), and the AUC of the ERA criteria (0.878) was comparable to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria (0.849) and higher than the 1987 ACR criteria (0.791, p<0.0001). Patients from the three countries, seronegative and very early arthritis cohorts yielded consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: The ERA criteria demonstrate a better performance across ethnics in early RA diagnosis, and is more feasible in daily practice.

Predictors of low disease activity and clinical remission following belimumab treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of low disease activity and clinical remission following belimumab treatment in SLE. METHODS: SLE patients who received belimumab 10 mg/kg (N = 563) in the BLISS-52 and BLISS-76 clinical trials were surveyed. The performance of baseline factors in predicting attainment of low disease activity (defined as Lupus Low Disease Activity State) or clinical remission [defined as clinical (c)SLEDAI-2K = 0] at week 52 from treatment initiation was evaluated using logistic regression. Organ damage was assessed using the SLICC/ACR Damage Index (SDI). RESULTS: We demonstrated a negative impact of established organ damage on attainment of Lupus Low Disease Activity State [SDI > 0; odds ratio (OR): 0.44; 95% CI 0.22, 0.90; P = 0.024] and the primary Lupus Low Disease Activity State condition, i.e. SLEDAI-2K ⩽ 4 with no renal activity, pleurisy, pericarditis or fever (SDI > 1; OR: 0.46; 95% CI 0.27, 0.77; P = 0.004); cognitive impairment/psychosis was found to mainly account for the latter association. Baseline SDI scores > 1 predicted failure to attain cSLEDAI-2K = 0 (OR: 0.53; 95% CI 0.30, 0.94; P = 0.030), with cutaneous damage mainly driving this association. Anti-dsDNA positivity increased (OR: 1.82; 95% CI 1.08, 3.06; P = 0.025) and cardiovascular damage reduced (OR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.02, 0.97; P = 0.047) the probability of attaining cSLEDAI-2K = 0 along with a daily prednisone equivalent intake restricted to ⩽7.5 mg. CONCLUSION: Belimumab might be expected to be more efficacious in inducing low disease activity and clinical remission in SLE patients with limited or no organ damage accrued prior to treatment initiation. Patients with positive anti-dsDNA titres might be more likely to achieve clinical remission along with limited or no CS use.

2017 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in rheumatoid arthritis.

Personalised medicine, new discoveries and studies on rare exposures or outcomes require large samples that are increasingly difficult for any single investigator to obtain. Collaborative work is limited by heterogeneities, both what is being collected and how it is defined. To develop a core set for data collection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) research which (1) allows harmonisation of data collection in future observational studies, (2) acts as a common data model against which existing databases can be mapped and (3) serves as a template for standardised data collection in routine clinical practice to support generation of research-quality data. A multistep, international multistakeholder consensus process was carried out involving voting via online surveys and two face-to-face meetings. A core set of 21 items ('what to collect') and their instruments ('how to collect') was agreed: age, gender, disease duration, diagnosis of RA, body mass index, smoking, swollen/tender joints, patient/evaluator global, pain, quality of life, function, composite scores, acute phase reactants, serology, structural damage, treatment and comorbidities. The core set should facilitate collaborative research, allow for comparisons across studies and harmonise future data from clinical practice via electronic medical record systems.

Efficacy of glucocorticoids, conventional and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the 2016 update of the recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An SLR for the period between 2013 and 2016 was undertaken to assess the efficacy of glucocorticoids (GCs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (tofacitinib and baricitinib) in randomised clinical trials. RESULTS: For GCs, four studies were included in the SLR. Patients without poor prognostic factors experienced benefit when GCs were added to methotrexate (MTX). Lower doses of GCs were similar to higher doses. For csDMARDs, two new studies comparing MTX monotherapy with combination csDMARD were included in the SLR. In the tREACH trial at the end of 12 months no difference between the groups in disease activity, functional ability and radiographic progression was seen, using principles of tight control (treat-to-target). In the CareRA trial, combination therapy with csDMARDs was not superior to MTX monotherapy and monotherapy was better tolerated.For tsDMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib were shown to be more effective than placebo (MTX) in different patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of GCs to csDMARD therapy may be beneficial but the benefits should be balanced against the risk of toxicity. Under tight control conditions MTX monotherapy is not less effective than combination csDMARDs, but better tolerated. Tofacitinib and baricitinib are efficacious in patients with RA, including those with refractory disease.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA. METHODS: Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)-without differences across bDMARDs-a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA.

Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained. RESULTS: The RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or 'spacing' was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update.

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Effectiveness of tocilizumab with and without synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a European collaborative study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) with and without synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) in a large observational study. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TCZ who had a baseline visit and information on concomitant sDMARDs were included. According to baseline data, patients were considered as taking TCZ as monotherapy or combination with sDMARDs. Main study outcomes were the change of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and TCZ retention. The prescription of TCZ as monotherapy was analysed using logistic regression. CDAI change was analysed with a mixed-effects model for longitudinal data. TCZ retention was analysed with a stratified extended Cox model. RESULTS: Multiple-adjusted analysis suggests that prescription of TCZ as monotherapy varied according to age, corticosteroid use, country of the registry and year of treatment initiation. The change of disease activity assessed by CDAI as well as the likelihood to be in remission were not significantly different whether TCZ was used as monotherapy or in combination with sDMARDs in a covariate-adjusted analysis. Estimates for unadjusted median TCZ retention were 2.3 years (95% CI 1.8 to 2.7) for monotherapy and 3.7 years (lower 95% CI limit 3.1, upper limit not estimable) for combination therapies. In a covariate-adjusted analysis, TCZ retention was also reduced when used as monotherapy, with an increasing difference between mono and combination therapy over time after 1.5 years (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: TCZ with or without concomitant sDMARDs resulted in comparable clinical response as assessed by CDAI change, but TCZ retention was shorter under monotherapy of TCZ.

Rituximab done: what's next in rheumatoid arthritis? A European observational longitudinal study assessing the effectiveness of biologics after rituximab treatment in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of biologics after rituximab (RTX) treatment in RA. METHODS: The effectiveness of TNF-α inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept (ABA) or tocilizumab (TCZ) was examined in patients previously treated with RTX using clinical data collected in the Collaborative Registries for the Evaluation of Rituximab in RA Collaborative registry. Patients had stopped RTX 6 months or less prior to the new biologic and had a baseline visit within 21 days of starting the new biologic. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-five patients were analysed after 6 months of treatment. Patients on TCZ (n = 86) had a greater decline of DAS28-ESR and clinical disease activity index than patients on TNFi (n = 89) or ABA (n = 90). This effect was also seen after adjusting for baseline prednisone use and the number of previous biologics. The mean DAS28-ESR scores in patients on TCZ were 1.0 (95% CI: 0.2, 1.7) and 1.8 (95% CI: 1.0, 2.5) points lower than in patients on TNFi or ABA, respectively. In patients on TCZ, the clinical disease activity index was 9.4 (95% CI: 1.7, 16.1) and 8.1 (95% CI: 0.9, 15.3) points lower than on TNFi and ABA, respectively. Patients on TCZ more frequently had good EULAR responses than patients on TNFi or ABA (66 vs 31 vs 14%, P < 0.001). The HAQ disability index improved in all treatment groups (P < 0.001), but did not differ between biologics, as did drug retention rates. The reasons for discontinuation of RTX and the number of previous biologics had no influence on outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this observational cohort of patients who discontinued RTX, TCZ provided a better control of RA than ABA or TNFi.

Effectiveness of TNF inhibitor switch in RA: results from the national Swedish register.

BACKGROUND: Switching to a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) after discontinuation of a first in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common strategy. The reason for the switch from the first TNFi could potentially influence the response to therapy. Data on direct comparisons between TNFi after switching are limited. METHODS: The national Swedish register was used. RA patients who switched to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab) after failure of a TNFi as first-ever biologic were identified. Effectiveness of treatment was compared across the three drugs according to the first TNFi used, the reason for discontinuing and the drug survival. Drug survival across TNFi used as second biologic was compared. RESULTS: Half of all patients starting infliximab, adalimumab or etanercept during the period 2005-2012 discontinued treatment for various reasons. Of these patients, a third switched within 2 months to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab). Around 35% of all patients achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months. Regarding the switching strategy, best results were observed among patients who switched from infliximab to etanercept because of (secondary) inefficacy. Etanercept as second TNFi was associated with longer drug survival compared with infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a second TNFi after the failure of the first may lead to good clinical results. The inter-drug differences in drug survival on the second TNFi mirror those reported previously for the first TNFi, suggesting that these differences are not solely due to channelling bias.