Predictors for severe persisting pain in rheumatoid arthritis are associated with pain origin and appraisal of pain.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with severe persisting pain and to identify predictive factors despite treatment-controlled disease activity. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study included outpatients with RA scheduled for escalation of anti-inflammatory treatment due to active disease and severe pain (Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)>3.2 and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)>50). At week 24, patients were stratified into reference group (DAS28 improvement>1.2 or DAS28≤3.2 and VAS pain score<50), non-responders (DAS28 improvement≤1.2 and DAS28>3.2, regardless of VAS pain score) and persisting pain group (DAS28 improvement>1.2 or DAS28≤3.2 and VAS pain score≥50). The former two subgroups ended the study at week 24. The latter continued until week 48. Demographic data, DAS28-C reactive protein, VAS for pain, painDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q) to identify neuropathic pain (NeP) and the Pain Catastrophising Scale were assessed and tested for relation to persisting pain. RESULTS: Of 567 patients, 337 (59.4%) were classified as reference group, 102 (18.0%) as non-responders and 128 (22.6%) as patients with persisting pain. 21 (8.8%) responders, 28 (35.0%) non-responders and 27 (26.5%) persisting pain patients tested positive for NeP at week 24. Pain catastrophising (p=0.002) and number of tender joints (p=0.004) were positively associated with persisting pain at week 24. Baseline PD-Q was not related to subsequent persisting pain. CONCLUSIONS: Persisting and non-nociceptive pain occur frequently in RA. Besides the potential involvement of NeP, pain catastrophising and a higher number of tender joints coincide with persisting pain.

Differential properties of Janus kinase inhibitors in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Janus kinases (JAKs) are a family of cytosolic tyrosine kinases that regulate cytokine signal transduction, including cytokines involved in a range of inflammatory diseases, such as RA, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and IBD. Several small-molecule JAK inhibitors (JAKis) are now approved for the treatment of various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. There are, however, key differences between these agents that could potentially translate into unique clinical profiles. Each JAKi has a unique chemical structure, resulting in a distinctive mode of binding within the catalytic cleft of the target JAK, and giving rise to distinct pharmacological characteristics. In addition, the available agents have differing selectivity for JAK isoforms, as well as off-target effects against non-JAKs. Other differences include effects on haematological parameters, DNA damage repair, reproductive toxicity and metabolism/elimination. Here we review the pharmacological profiles of the JAKis abrocitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, peficitinib, tofacitinib and upadacitinib.

Patterns and determinants of response to novel therapies in juvenile and adult-onset polyarthritis.

Biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) have revolutionized the management of multiple rheumatic inflammatory conditions. Among these, polyarticular JIA (pJIA) and RA display similarities in terms of disease pathophysiology and response pattern to b/tsDMARDs. Indeed, the therapeutic efficacy of novel targeted drugs is variable among individual patients, in both RA and pJIA. The mechanisms and determinants of this heterogeneous response are diverse and complex, such that the development of true 'precision'-medicine strategies has proven highly challenging. In this review, we will discuss pathophysiological, patient-specific, drug-specific and environmental factors contributing to individual therapeutic response in pJIA in comparison with what is known in RA. Although some biomarkers have been identified that stratify with respect to the likelihood of either therapeutic response or non-response, few have proved useful in clinical practice so far, likely due to the complexity of treatment-response mechanisms. Consequently, we propose a pragmatic, patient-centred and clinically based approach, i.e. personalized instead of biomarker-based precision medicine in JIA.

Efficacy Of Baricitinib in Patients With Moderate-To-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Up to 6.5 Years Of Treatment: Results Of A Long-Term Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of once-daily baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had inadequate response (IR) to MTX, csDMARDs, or bDMARDs. METHODS: Data from three completed phase III studies, RA-BEAM (MTX-IR), RA-BUILD (csDMARD-IR), and RA-BEACON (bDMARD-IR), and one completed long-term extension study (RA-BEYOND) were analyzed up to 6.5 years (340 weeks [RA-BEAM] and 336 weeks [RA-BUILD and RA-BEACON]). Low disease activity (LDA) (Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] ≤11), clinical remission (SDAI ≤3.3), and physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index [HAQ-DI] ≤0.5) were the main outcomes assessed. Completer and non-responder imputation (NRI) analyses were conducted on each population. RESULTS: At week 340 or 336, LDA was achieved in 37%/83% of MTX-IR, 35%/83% of csDMARD-IR, and 23%/73% of bDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg, assessed by NRI/completer analyses, respectively. Remission was achieved in 20%/40% of MTX-IR, 13%/32% of csDMARD-IR, and 9%/30% of bDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg, assessed by NRI/completer analyses, respectively. HAQ-DI ≤0.5 was reached in 31%/51% of MTX-IR, 25%/46% of csDMARD-IR, and 24%/38% of bDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg, assessed by NRI/completer analyses, respectively. CONCLUSION: Treatment with baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg demonstrated efficacy up to 6.5 years with maintained LDA/remission results across SDAI, CDAI and DAS28-hsCRP consistent with previously reported data, and was well tolerated.

The Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) Score in Telemedicine Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

The sudden and unanticipated emergence of SARS-Cov-2 at the beginning of the present decade, associated with high morbidity and mortality among people infected, prompted the rapid emergence of telemedicine approaches for the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The rationale was to limit the likelihood for viral contagion in a hospital outpatient setting for people rendered potentially more vulnerable by the immunosuppressive nature of many of the pharmacological interventions in the treatment armamentarium.

Approaches to optimising access to NICE-approved biologic anti-TNFs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis with moderately active disease.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that is associated with joint pain and stiffness. Biologics represent some of the most effective treatments for RA, but previous guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has limited their use to patients with severely active disease. This has meant patients with moderately active RA have been treated as if they have an acceptable disease state, despite many cases where the inflammation has a major impact on joint damage, mobility, pain and quality of life. However, recent guideline changes (NICE TA715) have approved the use of three biologics - adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab - for the treatment of moderately active RA. MAIN BODY: In response to these changes, we have held discussions with medical teams from across the UK to consider the main implications for implementation of these new recommendations, as well as any differences in approach that may exist at a local level. Several key challenges were identified. These included establishing methods of educating both physicians and patients concerning the new availability of the biologic treatments, with suggestions of various organisations that could be approached to circulate informative material. Identifying which patients with moderately active RA stand to benefit was another discussion topic. Relying solely on scoring systems like Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS28) was acknowledged to have limitations, and alternative complementary approaches such as ultrasound, as well as assessing a patient's co-morbidities, could also be useful tools in determining those who could benefit from biologics. An additional challenge for the process of patient identification has been the increase in the use of telemedicine consultations in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. More use of patient-reported outcomes was raised as one possible solution, and the importance of maintaining up-to-date databases on patient disease scores and treatment history was also stressed. CONCLUSION: While challenges exist in education and identifying patients who may benefit from the use of biologics, the NICE TA715 recommendations hold great potential in addressing an unmet need for the treatment of moderate RA.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus sarilumab or placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to targeted therapies: a phase III randomised trial (contRAst 3).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or Janus kinase inhibitors. METHODS: ContRAst 3 was a 24-week, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Patients received subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly), subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 12 weeks, in addition to csDMARDs. Patients receiving placebo were switched to active interventions at week 12 and treatment continued to week 24. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology ≥20% response (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 549 patients received treatment. At week 12, there was no significant difference in the proportion of ACR20 responders with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg versus placebo (45% (p=0.2868) and 51% (p=0.0596) vs 38%, respectively). There were no significant differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pain Visual Analogue Scale or Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores with otilimab versus placebo at week 12. Sarilumab demonstrated superiority to otilimab in ACR20 response and secondary end points. The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Otilimab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but failed to achieve the primary end point of ACR20 and improve secondary end points versus placebo or demonstrate non-inferiority to sarilumab in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04134728.

Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the importance of treatment sequencing in SELECT-COMPARE, assessing potential differences between starting upadacitinib or adalimumab therapy following inadequate MTX response. METHODS: Patients from SELECT-COMPARE were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg. Per protocol, patients with <20% improvement in tender or swollen joint counts (weeks 14, 18, 22) or failure to achieve Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) at week 26 were blindly switched from upadacitinib to adalimumab or vice versa. Treatment outcomes, including clinical remission/LDA, physical function, pain and a novel combined endpoint for deep response, were evaluated through 48 weeks and corresponding time-averaged response rates determined. Data were analysed by initial randomized group regardless of any subsequent switch in therapy. RESULTS: This post hoc analysis included 651 patients initially randomized to upadacitinib (of whom 252 switched to adalimumab) and 327 patients initially randomized to adalimumab (of whom 159 switched to upadacitinib). At week 48, patients randomized to either therapy demonstrated similar achievement of most treatment endpoints. Greater improvements in the total time spent in a lower disease state were observed for initial upadacitinib vs initial adalimumab therapy across most clinical and patient-reported outcomes through 48 weeks, and the median time to DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 occurred 6-8 weeks earlier among those randomized to upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: Following a modified treat-to-target strategy, rates of CDAI remission/LDA and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at 48 weeks were similar, regardless of starting therapy. However, patients initially receiving upadacitinib reached treatment targets more quickly and spent more time in clinical targets over the initial 48 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

Predicting successful biologics tapering in patients with inflammatory arthritis: Secondary analyses based on the BIOlogical Dose OPTimisation (BIODOPT) trial.

AIMS: To evaluate predictors for successful biologic tapering among patients with inflammatory arthritis using baseline characteristics from the BIODOPT trial. METHODS: Adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or axial spondyloarthritis on stable biologic dose and in low disease activity ≥12 months were enrolled. Participants were randomized (2:1) to disease activity-guided biologic tapering or continuation of baseline biologic. Patients achieving successful tapering reduced their biologic dose by ≥50%, had no protocol deviations and were in low disease activity at 18 months. Modified Poisson regression with robust variance estimator was applied. RESULTS: In total, 142 patients were randomized to tapering (n = 95) or control (n = 47). Successful tapering was achieved by 32 and 2%, respectively. Tapering group was the only statistically significant independent predictor for successful tapering, risk ratio (RR): 14.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9 to 101.3, P = .009). However, higher Short Form Health Survey 36 mental component summary (SF-36 MCS) was observed to be a predictor of potential importance, RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.13, P = .097). When limiting the analyses to the tapering group only, none of the baseline variables were statistically significant independent predictors but SF-36 MCS was still considered to be of potential importance, RR: 1.05 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.12, P = .098). CONCLUSION: Successful tapering is a reachable target for 1 in 3 patients with inflammatory arthritis who are interested in reducing their biological therapy. No statistically significant predictors (besides allocation to tapering) were identified. Future research on mental health and tapering is encouraged.

Rituximab versus tocilizumab in anti-TNF inadequate responder patients with rheumatoid arthritis (R4RA): 16-week outcomes of a stratified, biopsy-driven, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although targeted biological treatments have transformed the outlook for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 40% of patients show poor clinical response, which is mechanistically still unexplained. Because more than 50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have low or absent CD20 B cells-the target for rituximab-in the main disease tissue (joint synovium), we hypothesised that, in these patients, the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab would be more effective. The aim of this trial was to compare the effect of tocilizumab with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) stratified for synovial B-cell status. METHODS: This study was a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 randomised controlled trial (rituximab vs tocilizumab in anti-TNF inadequate responder patients with rheumatoid arthritis; R4RA) done in 19 centres across five European countries (the UK, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain). Patients aged 18 years or older who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and were eligible for treatment with rituximab therapy according to UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines were eligible for inclusion in the trial. To inform balanced stratification, following a baseline synovial biopsy, patients were classified histologically as B-cell poor or rich. Patients were then randomly assigned (1:1) centrally in block sizes of six and four to receive two 1000 mg rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (rituximab group) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (tocilizumab group). To enhance the accuracy of the stratification of B-cell poor and B-cell rich patients, baseline synovial biopsies from all participants were subjected to RNA sequencing and reclassified by B-cell molecular signature. The study was powered to test the superiority of tocilizumab over rituximab in the B-cell poor population at 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as a 50% improvement in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%) from baseline. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN database, ISRCTN97443826, and EudraCT, 2012-002535-28. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and Jan 17, 2019, 164 patients were classified histologically and were randomly assigned to the rituximab group (83 [51%]) or the tocilizumab group (81 [49%]). In patients histologically classified as B-cell poor, there was no statistically significant difference in CDAI50% between the rituximab group (17 [45%] of 38 patients) and the tocilizumab group (23 [56%] of 41 patients; difference 11% [95% CI -11 to 33], p=0·31). However, in the synovial biopsies classified as B-cell poor with RNA sequencing the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for CDAI50% (rituximab group 12 [36%] of 33 patients vs tocilizumab group 20 [63%] of 32 patients; difference 26% [2 to 50], p=0·035). Occurrence of adverse events (rituximab group 76 [70%] of 108 patients vs tocilizumab group 94 [80%] of 117 patients; difference 10% [-1 to 21) and serious adverse events (rituximab group 8 [7%] of 108 vs tocilizumab group 12 [10%] of 117; difference 3% [-5 to 10]) were not significantly different between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that RNA sequencing-based stratification of rheumatoid arthritis synovial tissue showed stronger associations with clinical responses compared with histopathological classification. Additionally, for patients with low or absent B-cell lineage expression signature in synovial tissue tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab. Replication of the results and validation of the RNA sequencing-based classification in independent cohorts is required before making treatment recommendations for clinical practice. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme from the UK National Institute for Health Research.

Safety of baricitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis over a median of 4.6 and up to 9.3 years of treatment: final results from long-term extension study and integrated database.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term safety from the completed extension trial of baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events are summarised from an integrated database (9 phase III/II/Ib and 1 long-term extension) of patients who received any baricitinib dose (All-bari-RA). Standardised incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC)) and standardised mortality ratio (SMR) were estimated. Additional analysis was done in a subset of patients who had ever taken 2 mg or 4 mg baricitinib. RESULTS: 3770 patients received baricitinib (14 744 patient-years of exposure (PYE)). All-bari-RA incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years at risk were 2.6, 3.0 and 0.5 for serious infections, herpes zoster and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), respectively. In patients aged ≥50 with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, the IR for MACE was 0.77 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.04). The IR for malignancy (excluding NMSC) during the first 48 weeks was 0.6 and remained stable thereafter (IR 1.0). The SIR for malignancies excluding NMSC was 1.07 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.26) and the SMR was 0.74 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). All-bari-RA IRs for deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE), DVT and PE were 0.5 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), 0.4 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.35), respectively. No clear dose differences were noted for exposure-adjusted IRs (per 100 PYE) for deaths, serious infections, DVT/PE and MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated analysis including long-term data of baricitinib from 3770 patients (median 4.6 years, up to 9.3 years) with active RA, baricitinib maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses. No new safety signals were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01185353, NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01710358, NCT02265705, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359 and NCT01885078.

Disease status in human and experimental arthritis, and response to TNF blockade, is associated with MHC class II invariant chain (CD74) isoform expression.

Splice variants of CD74 differentially modulate the activity of cathepsin L (CTSL). As CD74 and CTSL participate in the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we determined whether splice variants of CD74 could be biomarkers of disease activity. Gene expression was measured in mice with collagen-induced arthritis using quantitative PCR (qPCR). In vitro studies using murine macrophage/DC-lineage cells determined the relative influence of macrophage phenotype on isoform expression and the potential to produce CTSL in response to TNF. CD74 splice variants were measured in human RA synovium and RA patients' monocytes. In arthritic mice, the expression of the p41 CD74 isoform was significantly higher in severely affected paws compared with unaffected paws or the paws of naïve mice; the p41 isoform significantly correlated with the expression of TNF in arthritic paws. Compared with M2-like macrophages, M1-like macrophages expressed increased levels of CD74 and had higher expression, secretion and activity of CTSL. RA patients that responded to TNF blockade had significantly higher expression levels of CD74 in circulating monocytes after treatment, compared with non-responders. The expression of the human CD74 isoform a was significantly higher in RA synovia, compared with osteoarthritis synovia, and was associated with CSTL enzymatic activity. This study is the first to demonstrate differential expression of the CD74 p41 isoform in an auto-immune disorder and in response to therapy. The differential expression of CD74 splice variants indicates an association, and potentially a mechanistic role, in the pathogenesis of RA.

Risk of flare after tapering or withdrawal of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate flare risk when tapering or withdrawing biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (bDMARDs or tsDMARDs) compared with continuation in patients with inflammatory arthritis in sustained remission or with low disease activity. METHODS: Articles were identified in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Eligible trials were randomized controlled trials comparing tapering and/or withdrawal of bDMARDs and/or tsDMARDs with the standard dose in inflammatory arthritis. Random effects meta-analysis was performed with risk ratio (RR) or Peto's odds ratio (POR) for sparse events and 95% CI. RESULTS: The meta-analysis comprised 22 trials: 11 assessed tapering and 7 addressed withdrawal (4 assessed both). Only trials with an RA or axial SpA (axSpA) population were identified. An increased flare risk was demonstrated when b-/tsDMARD tapering was compared with continuation [RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.19, 1.77), I2 = 42.5%] and potentially increased for persistent flare [POR 1.56 (95% CI 0.97, 2.52), I2 = 0%]. Comparing TNF inhibitor (TNFi) withdrawal with continuation, a highly increased flare risk [RR 2.28 (95% CI 1.78, 2.93), I2 = 78%] and increased odds of persistent flare [POR 3.41 (95% CI 1.91, 6.09), I2 = 49%] were observed. No clear difference in flare risk between RA or axSpA was observed. CONCLUSION: A high risk for flare and persistent flare was demonstrated for TNFi withdrawal, whereas an increased risk for flare but not for persistent flare was observed for b-/tsDMARD tapering. Thus tapering seems to be the more favourable approach. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019136905).

The JAK inhibitor baricitinib inhibits oncostatin M induction of proinflammatory mediators in ex-vivo synovial derived cells.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the ex vivo effect of the JAK1/2 inhibitor baricitinib on expression of pro-inflammatory mediators in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fibroblast like synoviocytes (FLS) stimulated with TNFα, IL-1ß and oncostatin M (OSM), and in RA synovial membrane cells (SMCs). METHODS: RA and osteoarthritis (OA) SMCs, were isolated from arthroplasty specimens of RA (n=8) and OA (n=8) patients, respectively, using enzymatic digestion followed by cell propagation to obtain RA (n=5) and OA (n=3) FLS. Normal FLS and normal human foreskin fibroblasts (HSF) were purchased from commercial sources. Fibroblasts were stimulated with cytokines with or without baricitinib. RA SMCs were cultured in the presence of baricitinib without stimulation. JAK/STAT activation and levels of mRNA and proteins of the various inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, RANTES and IP-10) were determined by qPCR, ELISA and MSD. RESULTS: Baricitinib inhibited OSM-induced JAK signalling in RA synovial fibroblasts and effectively suppressed subsequent expression of the proinflammatory mediators IL-6, MCP-1 and IP-10. However, baricitinib was not effective in altering levels of spontaneously released TNFα, IL-6 and IL-8 in RA SMC. Although both TNFα and IL-1ß signal independently of the JAK/STAT pathway, in HSF, but not in RA FLS, baricitinib significantly inhibited TNFα- and IL-1ß-induced MCP-1 and IP-10 protein levels in a dose dependent manner. Furthermore, baricitinib did not inhibit TNFα- and IL-1ß-induced expression of IL-6, IL-8 and MCP-1 in RA FLS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with known signalling pathways employed by OSM, TNFα and IL-1ß, but our data suggest that in HSF, baricitinib may have anti-inflammatory effects via downstream modulation of cytokines and chemokines produced in response to TNFα or IL-1ß.

A vanA vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium ST80 outbreak resulting from a single importation event.

BACKGROUND: A marked genotype shift among vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREfm) from vanB to vanA in Australia between 2011 and 2015 is a well-known phenomenon. It is hypothesized that this was caused by multiple independent clones emerging simultaneously in different settings and/or regions. OBJECTIVES: To gain insights into the circumstances surrounding the shift from vanB to vanA VREfm in one Australian hospital. METHODS: The genomes of 69 vanA VREfm isolates from St George Hospital collected between 2009 and 2018 were studied. An expansion of ST80 vanA VREfm was noted following a single introduction. ST80 isolates were thus further characterized using hybrid sequencing and contextualized through comparisons with other published Australian ST80 isolates. Phylogenies were constructed with plasmid sequences compared with the index isolate. RESULTS: The 2011 expansion of ST80 vanA VREfm isolates in our institution originated from the 2009 index isolate, from a patient transferred from overseas. Phylogenetic analysis with other Australian ST80 vanA VREfm isolates showed that the 2011 expansion event was unique, with limited spread to adjacent local health districts. Plasmid analysis showed multiple variants, which can also be traced back to the 2009 isolate, consistent with ongoing plasmid adaptation over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm an expansion event following a VREfm introduction event leading to a sustained clonal and plasmid outbreak over several years. Moreover, it demonstrates the complexity of countrywide replacement events. This study also highlights the use of hybrid sequencing in establishing an epidemiological relationship to the index isolate that was initially inapparent.

TLR expression profiles are a function of disease status in rheumatoid arthritis and experimental arthritis.

The role of the innate immune system has been established in the initiation and perpetuation of inflammatory disease, but less attention has been paid to its role in the resolution of inflammation and return to homeostasis. Toll-like receptor (TLR) expression profiles were analysed in tissues with differing disease status in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and in experimental arthritis. TLR gene expression was measured in whole blood and monocytes, before and after TNF blockade. In RA and osteoarthritis synovia, the expression of TLRs was quantified by standard curve qPCR. In addition, four distinct stages of disease were defined and validated in collagen-induced arthritis (CIA), the gold standard animal model for RA - pre-onset, early disease, late disease and immunised mice that were resistant to the development of disease. TLR expression was measured in spleens, lymph nodes, blood cells, liver and the paws (inflamed and unaffected). In RA whole blood, the expression of TLR1, 4 and 6 was significantly reduced by TNF blockade but the differences in TLR expression profiles between responders and non-responders were less pronounced than the differences between RA and AS patients. In RA non-responders, monocytes had greater TLR2 expression prior to therapy compared to responders. The expression of TLR1, 2, 4 and 8 was higher in RA synovium compared to control OA synovium. Circulating cytokine levels in CIA resistant mice were similar to naïve mice, but anti-collagen antibodies were similar to arthritic mice. Distinct profiles of inflammatory gene expression were mapped in paws and organs with differing disease status. TLR expression in arthritic paws tended to be similar in early and late disease, with TLR1 and 2 moderately higher in late disease. TLR expression in unaffected paws varied according to gene and disease status but was generally lower in resistant paws. Disease status-specific profiles of TLR expression were observed in spleens, lymph nodes, blood cells and the liver. Notably, TLR2 expression rose then fell in the transition from naïve to pre-onset to early arthritis. TLR gene expression profiles are strongly associated with disease status. In particular, increased expression in the blood precedes clinical manifestation.

Targeted literature review of current treatments and unmet need in moderate rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The burden and treatment landscape of RA is poorly understood. This research aimed to identify evidence on quality of life, caregiver burden, economic burden, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with moderate RA in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed across multiple databases and screened against pre-defined inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 2610 records were screened; seven studies presenting evidence for moderate RA were included. These patients were found to incur substantial burden, with moderate to severe levels of disability. Compared with patients in remission, moderate RA patients reported higher levels of disability and decreased EQ-5D utility scores. The majority of patients did not feel that their current therapy adequately controlled their disease or provided sufficient symptom relief. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have not approved advanced therapies (such as biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs) for patients with moderate disease, which restricts access for these patients. CONCLUSION: The evidence available on the burden of moderate RA is limited. Despite current treatments, moderate RA still has a substantial negative impact, given that a DAS28 disease activity score defined as being in the moderate range does not qualify them for access to advanced therapies in the United Kingdom. For these patients, there is a particular need for further studies that investigate their burden and the impact of treating them earlier. Such information would help guide future treatment decisions and ensure the most effective use of resources to gain the best outcomes for patients with moderate RA.

Efficacy of baricitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with 3 years of treatment: results from a long-term study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of once-daily baricitinib 4 mg in patients with active RA who were either naïve to DMARDs or who had inadequate response (IR) to MTX. METHODS: Analyses of data from two completed 52-week, phase III studies, RA-BEGIN (DMARD-naïve) and RA-BEAM (MTX-IR), and one ongoing long-term extension (LTE) study (RA-BEYOND) were performed (148 total weeks). At week 52, DMARD-naïve patients treated with MTX monotherapy or baricitinib 4 mg+MTX in RA-BEGIN were switched to open-label baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy; MTX-IR patients treated with adalimumab (+MTX) in RA-BEAM were switched to open-label baricitinib 4 mg (+MTX) in the LTE. Patients who received placebo (+MTX) were switched to baricitinib 4 mg (+MTX) at week 24. Low disease activity (LDA) [Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11], clinical remission (SDAI ≤ 3.3), and physical functioning [Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤ 0.5] were assessed. Data were assessed using a non-responder imputation. RESULTS: At week 148, SDAI LDA was achieved in up to 61% of DMARD-naïve patients and 59% of MTX-IR patients initially treated with baricitinib, and SDAI remission was achieved in up to 34% of DMARD-naïve patients and 24% of MTX-IR patients; HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5 was reached in up to 48% of DMARD-naïve patients and 38% of MTX-IR patients initially treated with baricitinib. Over 148 weeks, 3.6% and 10.7% of MTX-IR patients discontinued across treatment groups due to lack of efficacy or due to adverse events, respectively; discontinuation rates were similar in the DMARD-naïve population. CONCLUSION: Treatment with baricitinib 4 mg demonstrated efficacy for up to 3 years and was well tolerated.

Patient-reported outcome measures in systemic lupus erythematosus by a web-based application: A randomized, crossover, agreement study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but not widely used in clinical practice. However, interest in incorporating PROMs into the management of SLE is increasing as PROMs provide a unique insight into the patient's perception of lupus disease activity. The objective was to assess agreement in PROMs answered using a web app versus an outpatient touchscreen among patients with SLE. METHODS: In a crossover RCT, SLE patients answered the following PROMs in a random order using the web app and the outpatient touchscreen: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) Global Health, SLAQ Symptom, SLAQ Total, SLAQ Worsening, Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Fatigue VAS, Patient Global Health VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and an Anchoring Question. Equivalence between the two device types was demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the difference in PROM scores was within the prespecified equivalence margin. Agreement between the two device types was assessed using mixed linear models. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with SLE were included. Equivalence was demonstrated between the two device types for SLAQ Global Health with a difference of -0.21 (95% CI: -0.65 to 0.23). Moreover, equivalence was also found for HAQ-DI, Pain VAS, and Fatigue VAS whereas only comparability within the limits of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was demonstrated for VAS Patient Global Health. Statistical comparability was demonstrated for SLAQ Total, SLAQ Worsening, PASS, and Anchoring Question (no predefined MCID/equivalence margins available). However, a statistically significant difference between device types was observed for the SLAQ Symptom of -0.56 (95% CI: -1.10 to -0.01). The difference was, however, very small when considering the scale range of 0-24; thus, it was not judged to be of clinical relevance. Preference for the web app was very high (91.2%). CONCLUSION: For the first time ever, equivalence and comparability between two electronic device types for various PROMs were demonstrated among patients with SLE. Implementation of the device is expected to improve the management of SLE.