Real-world utilisation and switching between Janus kinase inhibitors in Australian patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the OPAL dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To describe use and treatment persistence for Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by line of therapy, and the mechanism of action for the drug switched to after JAKi discontinuation. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational analysis using the OPAL dataset, a large collection of deidentified electronic medical records from 112 rheumatologists around Australia. Adult patients with RA were included if they initiated tofacitinib (TOF), baricitinib (BARI) or upadacitinib (UPA) between 1 October 2015 and 30 September 2021. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier survival was used to analyse treatment persistence. RESULTS: 5,900 patients initiated JAKi within the study window (TOF n=3,662, BARI n=1,875, UPA n=1,814). Median persistence was similar across JAKi within each line of therapy where there was sufficient follow-up, and almost 3 years for first-line: 34.9 months (95% CI 30.8, 40.7; n=1,408) for TOF, 33.6 months (95% CI 25.7, not reached; n=545) for BARI. While JAKi to JAKi switching occurred across all lines of therapy, switches to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) were more frequent after first- or second-line JAKi. JAKi monotherapy use at baseline increased with line of therapy, and was highest at follow-up after switching to another JAKi. 'Lack of efficacy' was the most common reason for discontinuing JAKi. CONCLUSIONS: In this large analysis of Australian real-world practice separated by line of therapy, treatment persistence for JAKi was high overall subject to differential follow-up, but declined in later lines. JAKi to JAKi switching was observed across all lines of therapy.

A high throughput immuno-affinity mass spectrometry method for detection and quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in human saliva and its comparison with RT-PCR, RT-LAMP, and lateral flow rapid antigen test.

OBJECTIVES: Many reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) methods exist that can detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in different matrices. RT-PCR is highly sensitive, although viral RNA may be detected long after active infection has taken place. SARS-CoV-2 proteins have shorter detection windows hence their detection might be more meaningful. Given salivary droplets represent a main source of transmission, we explored the detection of viral RNA and protein using four different detection platforms including SISCAPA peptide immunoaffinity liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (SISCAPA-LC-MS) using polyclonal capture antibodies. METHODS: The SISCAPA-LC MS method was compared to RT-PCR, RT-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and a lateral flow rapid antigen test (RAT) for the detection of virus material in the drool saliva of 102 patients hospitalised after infection with SARS-CoV-2. Cycle thresholds (Ct) of RT-PCR (E gene) were compared to RT-LAMP time-to-positive (TTP) (NE and Orf1a genes), RAT optical densitometry measurements (test line/control line ratio) and to SISCAPA-LC-MS for measurements of viral protein. RESULTS: SISCAPA-LC-MS showed low sensitivity (37.7 %) but high specificity (89.8 %). RAT showed lower sensitivity (24.5 %) and high specificity (100 %). RT-LAMP had high sensitivity (83.0 %) and specificity (100.0 %). At high initial viral RNA loads (<20 Ct), results obtained using SISCAPA-LC-MS correlated with RT-PCR (R2 0.57, p-value 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in saliva was less frequent than the detection of viral RNA. The SISCAPA-LC-MS method allowed processing of multiple samples in <150 min and was scalable, enabling high throughput.

Effect of cancer waiting time standards in the English National Health Service: a threshold analysis.

BACKGROUND: The English National Health Service has multiple waiting time standards relating to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Targets can have unintended effects, such as prioritisation based on targets instead of clinical need. In this case, a `threshold effect' will appear as a spike in hospitals just meeting the target. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of publicly available cancer waiting time data, including a 2-week wait for a specialist appointment, a 31-day decision to first treatment and a 62-day referral to treatment standard that attracted a financial penalty. We examined the performance of hospital trusts against these targets by financial year to look for threshold effects, using Cattaneo et al. manipulation density test. RESULTS: Trust performance against cancer waiting targets declined over time, and this trend accelerated since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Statistical evidence of a threshold effect for the 2-week and 31-day standard was only present in a few years. However, there was strong statistical evidence of a threshold effect for the 62-day standard across all financial years (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The data suggests that the effect of threshold targets alters hospital behaviour at target levels but does not do so equally for all standards. Evidence of threshold effects for the 62-day standard was particularly strong, possibly due to some combination of a smaller volume of eligible patients, a larger penalty, multiple waypoints where hospitals can intervene, baseline performance against the target and where the target is set (i.e. how much headroom is available). RCTs of the use of threshold targets and of different designs for such targets in the future would be extremely informative.

Comparative effectiveness of etanercept originator and biosimilar for treating rheumatoid arthritis: implications for cost-savings.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of the etanercept (ETN) originator (Enbrel) and ETN biosimilar SB4 (Brenzys) as first-line treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), while also exploring the potential cost-savings associated with this approach in Australia. METHODS: Clinical data were obtained from the Optimising Patient outcomes in rheumatoLogy Australian real-world data set. Adult patients with RA who had initiated treatment with the ETN originator or biosimilar as their first-recorded biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2020 were included. Treatment persistence was analysed using survival analysis. Cost-savings were estimated based on data reported by the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise. RESULTS: Propensity score matching followed by inverse probability of treatment weighting selected patients taking originator (n = 209) or biosimilar (n = 141) with similar baseline characteristics and eliminated small differences in baseline disease activity. The median time for 50% of the patients to stop treatment was 19.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7-36.4 months) for the originator and 22.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-33.1 months) for the biosimilar (P = 0.95). As a result of pricing policies established by the Australian Government, introduction of the ETN biosimilar would have resulted in a cost-savings of over AU$9.5 million for 1 year of treatment for the patients reported in this study. CONCLUSION: Treatment persistence using either ETN originator or biosimilar was similar. The cost of all brands of ETN markedly reduced upon listing of the ETN biosimilar, resulting in significant savings for the Australian Government.

Practitioners' views on community implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the UK: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Implementing Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in community practice could help to decide upon and prioritise initial treatment, procedures and appropriate specialist referral or conveyance to hospital. A recent literature review suggests that image quality, portability and cost of ultrasound devices are all improving with widening indications for community POCUS, but evidence about community POCUS use is needed in the UK. We aimed to explore views of clinical practitioners, actively using ultrasound, on their experiences of using POCUS and potential facilitators and barriers to its wider implementation in community settings in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with practitioners from community and secondary care settings actively using POCUS in practice. A convenience sample of eligible participants from different clinical specialties and settings was recruited using social media adverts, through websites of relevant research groups and snowball sampling. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. These were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a Framework approach supported by NVivo 12. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 practitioners aged between 40 and 62 years from different professional backgrounds, including paramedics, emergency physicians, general practitioners, and allied health professionals. Participants identified key considerations and facilitators for wider implementation of POCUS in community settings in the UK: resource requirements for deployment and support of working devices; sufficient time and a skilled workforce; attention to training, education and support needs; ensuring proper governance, guidelines and quality assurance; workforce considerations; enabling ease of use in assisting decision making with consideration of unintended consequences; and more robust evidence to support perceptions of improved patient outcomes and experience. CONCLUSIONS: POCUS could be useful for improving patient journey and health outcomes in community care, but this requires further research to evaluate outcomes. The facilitators identified could help make community POCUS a reality.

Prospective Surveillance of Respiratory Infections in British Antarctic Survey Bases During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The British Antarctic bases offer a semiclosed environment for assessing the transmission and persistence of seasonal respiratory viruses. METHODS: Weekly swabbing was performed for respiratory pathogen surveillance (including SARS-CoV-2), at 2 British Antarctic Survey bases, during 2020: King Edward Point (KEP, 30 June to 29 September, 9 participants, 124 swabs) and Rothera (9 May to 6 June, 27 participants, 127 swabs). Symptom questionnaires were collected for any newly symptomatic cases that presented during this weekly swabbing period. RESULTS: At KEP, swabs tested positive for non-SARS-CoV-2 seasonal coronavirus (2), adenovirus (1), parainfluenza 3 (1), and respiratory syncytial virus B (1). At Rothera, swabs tested positive for non-SARS-CoV-2 seasonal coronavirus (3), adenovirus (2), parainfluenza 4 (1), and human metapneumovirus (1). All bacterial agents identified were considered to be colonizers and not pathogenic. CONCLUSIONS: At KEP, the timeline indicated that the parainfluenza 3 and adenovirus infections could have been linked to some of the symptomatic cases that presented. For the other viruses, the only other possible sources were the visiting ship crew members. At Rothera, the single symptomatic case presented too early for this to be linked to the subsequent viral detections, and the only other possible source could have been a single nonparticipating staff member.

Apremilast monotherapy for long-term treatment of active psoriatic arthritis in DMARD-naïve patients.

OBJECTIVES: Apremilast monotherapy was evaluated up to 5 years in PALACE 4 (fourth PsA Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy study) DMARD-naïve patients with PsA. METHODS: Patients with active PsA were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 30 mg or apremilast 20 mg twice a day. Placebo patients were rerandomized to apremilast at week 16 or 24. Double-blind apremilast continued to week 52, with a 4-year open-label extension (≤260 weeks of exposure). Analyses through week 260 were based on observed data. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients were treated. Among patients randomized to apremilast 30 mg at baseline, 45.5% completed week 260. At study end, 24.8% reported conventional synthetic DMARD or steroid use for any reason. At week 260, 65.8%/39.0%/20.3% of apremilast 30 mg patients achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 responses, respectively. PsA sign and symptom improvements were sustained up to week 260 with continued treatment, including reductions in swollen (84.8%) and tender (76.4%) joint counts. Among apremilast 30 mg patients with baseline enthesitis or dactylitis, 71.2% achieved a Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score of 0 and 95.1% achieved a dactylitis count of 0. Over 50% of patients achieved a HAQ Disability Index minimal clinically important difference (≥0.35). In patients with ≥3% baseline psoriasis-involved body surface area, 60.3% and 47.6% achieved ≥50% and ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. Patients continuing apremilast 20 mg also demonstrated consistent, sustained improvements. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, nausea, headache, upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis. No new safety concerns were observed long term. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast led to sustained PsA efficacy up to 260 weeks and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01307423.

Implementation of the OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System in a randomized phase IIb study of abatacept in psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if the OMERACT PsA MRI Scoring System (PsAMRIS), including a novel total inflammation score, shows sensitivity to change with an agent (abatacept) known to impact clinical outcomes in PsA. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of a randomized phase IIb study of abatacept in patients with PsA and inadequate DMARD response. Participants received one of three abatacept dosing regimens [ABA3, ABA10 or ABA30/10 mg/kg (30 mg/kg switched to 10 mg/kg after two doses)] or placebo until day 169, then ABA10 through day 365. MRIs at baseline and days 85, 169 and 365 were centrally evaluated by two readers blinded to chronological order and treatment arm. Synovitis, osteitis, tenosynovitis, periarticular inflammation, bone erosions, joint space narrowing and bone proliferation were assessed using the PsAMRIS. A novel total inflammation score was tested. RESULTS: MRIs for 123 patients were included. On day 169, ABA10 and ABA30/10 significantly reduced MRI synovitis and tenosynovitis, respectively, vs placebo [differences -0.966 (P = 0.039) and -1.652 (P = 0.014), respectively]. Synovitis in the placebo group increased non-significantly from baseline to day 169, total inflammation and tenosynovitis decreased non-significantly and all measures improved significantly after a switch to ABA10 [-1.019, -0.940, -2.275 (P < 0.05), respectively, day 365 vs day 169]. Structural outcomes changed minimally across groups. CONCLUSION: Adults with PsA receiving ABA10 and ABA30/10 demonstrated significant resolution of inflammatory components of disease, confirmed by MRI, with synovitis and tenosynovitis improvements consistent with previously reported clinical responses for these doses. Results indicate that a reduction in OMERACT PsAMRIS inflammation scores may provide proof of tissue-level efficacy in PsA clinical trials. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT00534313.

Retrospective SARS-CoV-2 IgG screening during the first wave (March-June 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

During the "first wave" of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United Kingdom (March-June 2020), the city of Leicester was particularly hard hit, resulting in reimposed lockdown measures. Although initial polymerase chain reaction testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was attempted within the community, testing was soon abandoned due to an inability to keep up with demand by local laboratories. It is therefore feasible that undiagnosed transmission of COVID-19 in the community by asymptomatic individuals was a real possibility. Therefore, retrospective SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) testing of archived sera from out-patients visiting University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust service was performed to investigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. A total of 1779 sera samples were tested from samples collected between 16th March and 3rd June 2020, of which 202 (11.35%) were SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive. Positivity was lowest in March (2.54%) at the beginning of the pandemic before peaking in April (17.16%) before a decline in May and June (11.16% and 12.68%, respectively). This retrospective screening offers some insight into the early patterns of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within a sampled community population during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic; supporting the argument for more community screening during high incidences of pandemics.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroconversion in hematology-oncology patients.

Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in China at the end of 2019, the virus has spread rapidly across the globe leading to millions of infections and subsequent deaths. Although the virus infects those exposed indiscriminately, there are groups in society at an increased risk of severe infection, leading to increased morbidity. Patients suffering from hematological cancers, particularly leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, may be one such group and previous studies have suggested that they may be at a three to four times greater risk of severe COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 infection, leading to admissions to ICU, mechanical ventilation, and death compared to those without such malignancies. Serological testing for IgG seroconversion has been extensively studied in the immunocompetent, but fewer publications have characterized this process in large series of immunocompromised patients. This study described 20 patients with hematological cancers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via PCR with 12 of the patients receiving further serological testing. We found that of the 12 patients screened for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, only 2 (16.6%) were able to generate an immune response to the infection. Yet despite this low seroconversion rate in this cohort, none of these patients died or became particularly unwell with COVID-19 or its related complications.

Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV: Validation and impact evaluation at a large UK hospital trust.

Despite vaccination programs and antivirals, influenza remains a prominent cause of morbidity and mortality. The Xpert Xpress Flu/respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) test is a leading influenza point-of-care test, but its evaluation has been limited to nasopharyngeal samples. In addition, the clinical impacts of Xpress Flu/RSV have not yet been quantified. We evaluated the performance of Xpress Flu/RSV at three locations in a UK Hospital Trust against an existing laboratory assay. Multiple upper respiratory tract sample types were included. In addition, we calculated time saved by Xpert, and the associations between Xpert use and rates of early patient isolation and antiviral prescription as recorded at the time of the laboratory result being telephoned out. A total of 642 patients were included in the diagnostic performance analysis. There were 177 laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza A, 7 influenza B and 86 RSV. For influenza A, sensitivity and specificity were 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.8%-98.8%) and 98.1% (CI: 96.4%-99.1%), respectively. This was sustained across all locations and sample types. The negative predictive value was 98.7% (CI: 97.2%-99.4%). The median amount of time saved was 27.1 h. Xpert use was associated with sixfold higher rates of isolation and threefold higher rates of antiviral prescribing by the time the laboratory result was available. Sensitivity for RSV was lower at 86.0% (95% CI: 76.9%-92.6%). Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV reliably detects influenza A infection and has significant clinical impacts. Cartridge optimization is required to enable accurate multiplexing, including from a range of sample types.

COVID-19 multisystem inflammatory syndrome in three teenagers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is generally a relatively mild illness in children. An emerging disease entity coined as pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) has been reported recently, but is very rare and only affects a very small minority of children. Here we describe the clinical presentations and outcomes of three teenagers with serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit for PIMS-TS. Although their initial presentations were very similar, their COVID-19-related disease varied in severity.

Early vertebroplasty within 3 weeks of fracture for acute painful vertebral osteoporotic fractures: subgroup analysis of the VAPOUR trial and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: VAPOUR found vertebroplasty (V) more effective than placebo (P) in patients with severe pain and fracture duration less than 6 weeks. Exploratory analysis suggested that benefits were concentrated in the subgroup of patients with fractures ≤ 3-week duration. This difference may account for the three negative blinded trials that included few patients within this fracture time frame. PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of early vertebroplasty for acute painful vertebral osteoporotic fractures within 3 weeks of fracture onset in the VAPOUR study. METHODS: Spearman's rank log coefficients were calculated to reassess the relationship of pain reduction from vertebroplasty and fracture duration in the VAPOUR trial. We more fully report baseline and outcome data in patients with fractures ≤ 3-week duration. RESULTS: There were 46V and 47P patients with fractures ≤ 3-week duration. Baseline characteristics were similar. In total, 86 patients (41V, 45P) completed the 14-day questionnaire. The proportion of patients with reduction in pain from severe (NRS ≥ 7/10 was an inclusion requirement) to mild (NRS < 4) at 14 days was 21 (51%) V-group and 9 (20%) in the P-group (between-group difference 31 percentage points, 95% CI 12-50; p = 0.002). Early vertebroplasty provided greater reductions in mean NRS pain and Roland-Morris Disability. CONCLUSION: Analysis of this patient subgroup from the VAPOUR trial, in the context of other randomised trial evidence, suggests clinically significant benefits from early vertebroplasty if performed within 3 weeks of fracture. These slides can be retrieved from Electronic Supplementary Material.

Tofacitinib 5 mg Twice Daily in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response to Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Phase 3 Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We performed a comprehensive review of phase 3 studies of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) (approved dose in many countries) in patients with moderate to severe RA and inadequate response to prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: A search of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov identified 5 studies: ORAL Solo (NCT00814307), ORAL Sync (NCT00856544), ORAL Standard (included adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks; NCT00853385), ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), and ORAL Step (NCT00960440). Efficacy and safety data for tofacitinib 5 mg BID, placebo, and adalimumab were analyzed. RESULTS: Across the 5 studies, 1216 patients received tofacitinib 5 mg BID, 681 received placebo, and 204 received adalimumab. At month 3, tofacitinib demonstrated significantly higher 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, respectively) response rates, greater improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and a higher proportion of Disease Activity Score-defined remission than placebo. Frequencies of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were similar for tofacitinib and placebo at month 3; serious infection events were more frequent for tofacitinib. In ORAL Standard, although not powered for formal comparisons, tofacitinib and adalimumab had numerically similar efficacy and AEs; serious AEs and serious infection events were more frequent with tofacitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib 5 mg BID reduced RA signs and symptoms and improved physical function versus placebo in patients with inadequate response to prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID had a consistent, manageable safety profile across studies, with no new safety signals identified.

Apremilast monotherapy in DMARD-naive psoriatic arthritis patients: results of the randomized, placebo-controlled PALACE 4 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The PALACE 4 trial evaluated apremilast monotherapy in patients with active PsA who were DMARD-naive. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day or apremilast 30 mg twice a day. At week 16 or 24, placebo patients were rerandomized to apremilast. Double-blind apremilast treatment continued to week 52, with extension up to 4 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ⩾20% improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR20) at week 16; secondary endpoints included the mean change in the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score at week 16. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients with mean disease duration of 3.4 years and high disease activity were randomized and received treatment. More apremilast patients achieved ACR20 response at week 16 [placebo, 15.9%; 20 mg, 28.0% (P = 0.0062); 30 mg, 30.7% (P = 0.0010)]. The mean HAQ-DI improvements were -0.17 (20 mg; P = 0.0008) and -0.21 (30 mg; P < 0.0001) vs 0.03 (placebo). Both apremilast doses showed significant ACR50 responses vs placebo at week 16 and improvements in secondary efficacy measures (swollen/tender joint counts) and psoriasis assessments, with sustained improvements through week 52. Common adverse events (AEs) over 52 weeks were diarrhoea, nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection; most events were mild or moderate. Serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were comparable between groups. Laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and transient. CONCLUSIONS: In DMARD-naive patients, apremilast monotherapy improved PsA signs/symptoms over 52 weeks and was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01307423.

Effectiveness of biologics in Australian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a large observational study: REAL.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of biologic treatment regimens in a real world Australian population is unknown. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate and/or other conventional DMARD (cDMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A retrospective, non-interventional study was conducted that investigated the use of bDMARD in adult patients with RA in routine clinical practice. Data were extracted from the Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology - Quality Use of Medicines Initiative database. Real-world effectiveness was measured using the 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) by treatment group at baseline, weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: A total of 2970 patients was included with a median (min-max) age of 60.0 (19.0-94.0) years and median (min-max) duration of RA before first bDMARD treatment of 6.0 (0.2-58.3) years. A total of 1177 patients received more than one bDMARD during the analysis period of 1 January 1997 to 15 August 2015. Patients had 4922 treatment 'episodes' (defined as a cycle of continuous individual bDMARD prescribing in a single patient). Patients received a mean (SD) of 1.7 (1.0) episodes of treatment with median (min-max) treatment duration of 0.7 (0-11.8) years; median treatment duration was higher with the first treatment episode. bDMARD were most commonly initiated in combination with methotrexate (73.9% of episodes) and least commonly as monotherapy (9.9% of episodes). Median (min-max) baseline DAS28 decreased from 5.3 (0-8.7) with the first bDMARD to 3.7 (0-8.8) with the second. Median baseline CDAI similarly decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tended to persist longer on their first bDMARD treatment. bDMARD as monotherapy or in combination appear to be accepted treatment strategies in the real world.

Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that vertebroplasty provides effective analgesia for patients with poorly controlled pain and osteoporotic spinal fractures of less than 6 weeks' duration. The effectiveness of vertebroplasty, using an adequate vertebral fill technique, in fractures of less than 6 weeks' duration has not been specifically assessed by previously published masked trials. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vertebroplasty in four hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We recruited patients with one or two osteoporotic vertebral fractures of less than 6 weeks' duration and Numeric Rated Scale (NRS) back pain greater than or equal to 7 out of 10. We used an automated telephone randomisation service provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council to assign patients (1:1; stratified according to age, degree of vertebral compression, trauma, corticosteroid use, and hospital) to either vertebroplasty or placebo, immediately before the procedure. Patients received conscious sedation. Vertebroplasty was done with the adequate vertebral fill technique and the placebo procedure with simulated vertebroplasty. Follow-up was for 6 months. Outcome assessors and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with NRS pain below 4 out of 10 at 14 days post-intervention in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482793. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2011, and Dec 5, 2014, 120 patients were enrolled. 61 patients were randomly assigned to vertebroplasty and 59 to placebo. 24 (44%) patients in the vertebroplasty group and 12 (21%) in the control group had an NRS pain score below 4 out of 10 at 14 days (between-group difference 23 percentage points, 95% CI 6-39; p=0·011). Three patients in each group died from causes judged unrelated to the procedure. There were two serious adverse events in each group, related to the procedure (vertebroplasty group) and the fracture (control group). INTERPRETATION: Vertebroplasty is superior to placebo intervention for pain reduction in patients with acute osteoporotic spinal fractures of less than 6 weeks' in duration. These findings will allow patients with acute painful fractures to have an additional means of pain management that is known to be effective. FUNDING: Education grant from CareFusion Corporation.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomised phase III study of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biological agents (RA-BEACON).

OBJECTIVES: To assess baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, who had insufficient response or intolerance to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: In this double-blind phase III study, patients were randomised to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg for 24 weeks. PROs included the Short Form-36, EuroQol 5-D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis. Treatment comparisons were performed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables. RESULTS: 527 patients were randomised (placebo, 176; baricitinib 2 mg, 174; baricitinib 4 mg, 177). Both baricitinib-treated groups showed statistically significant improvements versus placebo in most PROs. Improvements were generally more rapid and of greater magnitude for patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg than 2 mg and were maintained to week 24. At week 24, more baricitinib-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients reported normal physical functioning (HAQ-DI <0.5; p≤0.001), reductions in fatigue (FACIT-F ≥3.56; p≤0.05), improvements in PtGA (p≤0.001) and pain (p≤0.001) and reductions in duration of MJS (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib improved most PROs through 24 weeks compared with placebo in this study of treatment-refractory patients with previously inadequate responses to bDMARDs, including at least one TNFi. PRO results aligned with clinical efficacy data for baricitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01721044; Results.