Integrated safety analysis of filgotinib in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis over a treatment duration of up to 8.3 years.

OBJECTIVES: To update the long-term safety profile of filgotinib, a Janus kinase-1 preferential inhibitor, in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Data from seven trials were integrated (NCT01888874, NCT01894516, NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728, NCT02065700 and NCT03025308). Patients received once-daily filgotinib 100 mg or 200 mg. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs)/100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) were calculated for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Post hoc analyses assessed patients aged <65 and ≥65 years. RESULTS: Patients (N=3691) received filgotinib for a median (maximum) of 3.8 (8.3) years (12 541 PYE). Rates of TEAEs of interest: serious infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolism were stable over time and comparable between doses. In the overall population, numerically lower EAIR (95% CI)/100 PYE of herpes zoster was observed for filgotinib 100 mg versus 200 mg (1.1 (0.8 to 1.5) vs 1.5 (1.2 to 1.8)). Incidence of serious infections, herpes zoster, MACE, malignancies and all-cause mortality was higher in patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years. In patients aged ≥65 years, EAIRs (95% CI)/100 PYE for non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) (0.4 (0.1 to 1.1) vs 1.4 (0.8 to 2.2)), malignancies excluding NMSC (1.0 (0.5 to 1.9) vs 2.0 (1.3 to 2.9)) and all-cause mortality (1.3 (0.7 to 2.2) vs 1.6 (1.0 to 2.5)) were numerically lower for filgotinib 100 mg versus 200 mg. CONCLUSIONS: In the overall population, TEAEs of interest were stable over time and similar between filgotinib 100 mg and 200 mg dose groups, except for herpes zoster. A dose-dependent relationship between malignancies and all-cause mortality was suggested in patients ≥65 years old.

Definitions of rheumatoid arthritis flare and how they relate to patients' perspectives: A scoping review of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by intermittent flares of disease activity with a significant impact on patients' lives. However, distinguishing flare from daily symptom variation may be approached differently by patients and healthcare providers, potentially hampering shared decision-making when treating RA. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive overview of RA flare definitions reported in the published literature, and to compare these with patients' perceptions of the flare concept according to qualitative evidence. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on August 30th, 2022, and updated on September 30th, 2023, for both quantitative and qualitative studies reporting "flare" or related terms in the context of RA. We searched the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Definitions of RA flare reported in quantitative studies were summarized descriptively. In parallel, a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies was performed to outline patients' views on the concept of flare, and to compare these with the currently used definitions. RESULTS: Among 32,864 potentially eligible records, 304 studies were included, 5 of which used qualitative/mixed methods to study patients' perceptions of flare. Remarkably, 62 different definitions for RA flare were reported, with many studies reporting more than one. The most commonly used definitions (54 %) were based on disease activity indices, with DAS28-based definitions the most widely applied (84 %). For each of the disease activity indices, several different cutoffs to define flares were used. Various definitions based on physician report were applied in 24 % of cases, while patient-reported criteria represented only 15 % of the applied definitions. Thematic synthesis of the qualitative/mixed-methods studies highlighted the multidimensional impact of flares on patients' lives, resulting in five sequential overarching themes: "Living with RA: a balancing act", "Flare: a disturbance of this balance", "The biopsychosocial impact of flares", "Self-management: the first line of defense", and "Medical help: the last resort". In turn, these five themes were underpinned by a central theme of "Uncertainty and variability". CONCLUSION: We found a striking heterogeneity regarding the conceptualization and measurement of RA flare in the published literature. Although qualitative evidence highlighted the considerable impact of flares on patients' wellbeing, the majority of reported flare definitions were not based on patient report. There is a need to bridge this gap by aligning patients' and healthcare professionals' views on what distinguishes a flare from acceptable symptom variability when living with RA.

Patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The recommended dose of a rituximab course for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) consists of two infusions of 1000 mg with a 2-week interval. Evidence is growing that a lower dose could be as effective. We aimed to investigate patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab. METHODS: Patients with RA treated with rituximab, and rheumatologists were invited for a qualitative study via individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited based on purposive sampling to ensure diversity. Interviews were analysed according to the principles of grounded theory and the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Sixteen patients and 13 rheumatologists were interviewed. Patients and rheumatologists perceived the benefits of rituximab dose reduction for reasons of safety and societal costs. Furthermore, available evidence for the effectiveness of lower doses was mentioned as an argument in favour, in addition to the possibility to tailor the dose based on the patients' clinical manifestations. However, patients and rheumatologists had concerns about the potential loss of effectiveness and quality of life. Moreover, some rheumatologists felt uncomfortable with dose reduction due to insufficient experience with rituximab in general. Patients and rheumatologists emphasised the importance of shared decision-making, underscoring the pivotal role of physicians in this process by explaining the reasoning behind dose reduction. CONCLUSION: Although some concerns on effectiveness were perceived, both patients and rheumatologists saw potential benefits of dose reduction in terms of safety, societal costs, and application of a personalised approach. As a result, most rheumatologists and patients showed a willingness to consider dose reduction strategies.

To flare or not to flare: patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on the on-flare retreatment strategy of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis.

Background: Several retreatment strategies exist for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In some countries, reimbursement criteria require a loss of disease control for rituximab retreatment. Understanding the patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions regarding this retreatment strategy would be informative in identifying the optimal treatment administration schedule. Objectives: This study aimed to uncover patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions regarding retreatment strategies of rituximab. Design: Qualitative study - semi-structured interviews. Methods: Patients with RA, treated with rituximab, and rheumatologists were invited to participate in a qualitative study consisting of individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed according to the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. Results: A total of 16 patients and 13 rheumatologists were interviewed. Benefits (e.g. decreased risk of overtreatment, cost savings and long-lasting effectiveness of rituximab) and barriers (e.g. fluctuating disease activity, slow mode of action and increased glucocorticoid use) of on-flare retreatment were identified. To effectively treat on-flare, flares must first be identified timely. Both stakeholder groups acknowledged that patients are capable of recognizing flares. However, the patient's ability to discriminate between inflammatory and other types of pain was perceived as difficult. Furthermore, patients and rheumatologists stressed that patients must timely seek professional help in case of a flare, followed by a swift response from the rheumatologists. Remarkably, retreatment was approached in various ways among rheumatologists, and not always adhering strictly to the on-flare reimbursement criteria. Conclusion: This study revealed that both stakeholder groups perceived the heterogeneity in recognition of and reaction to a flare as important in influencing the effectiveness of the on-flare retreatment strategy. Moreover, this study identified the benefits and barriers of treating on-flare, which could be informative for daily practice decisions.

Impact of filgotinib on pain control in the phase 3 FINCH studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of the FINCH 1-3 (NCT02889796, NCT02873936 and NCT02886728) studies assessed specific effects of filgotinib on pain control and their relationship with other aspects of efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Assessments included: residual pain responses of ≤10 and ≤20 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS); the proportion of patients who achieved VAS pain responses in addition to remission or low disease activity by Disease Activity Score-28 with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) criteria. RESULTS: Across studies, filgotinib reduced pain from week 2, with responses sustained throughout the studies. In FINCH 1, at week 24, 35.8%, 25.0%, 24.6% and 11.6% of patients in the filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, adalimumab and placebo arms (each plus methotrexate) achieved VAS pain ≤20 mm in addition to DAS28-CRP remission; 26.3%, 17.9%, 17.2% and 7.6% achieved VAS pain ≤10 mm in addition to DAS28-CRP remission. A similar pattern was seen for CDAI remission. Time during which VAS pain was ≤10 or ≤20 mm was longest with filgotinib 200 mg and comparable between adalimumab and filgotinib 100 mg. Similar findings were reported for filgotinib in FINCH 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: In all RA populations studied, pain improvements occurred from week 2 and were sustained over time. In FINCH 1, filgotinib 100 mg provided similar pain amelioration to adalimumab, whereas filgotinib 200 mg resulted in greater pain improvement and higher proportion of patients with residual pain ≤10 or ≤20 mm and meeting DAS28-CRP remission criteria.

Patient-physician discordance impairs outcomes in early rheumatoid arthritis through less consistent treat-to-target implementation.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether patient-physician discordance regarding disease activity affects T2T-implementation and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This was an analysis of the 2-year T2T-guided trial Care in early RA (CareRA). During year 1, DMARD escalations were mandated by the protocol when DAS28-CRP was >3.2. During year 2, treatment was at the rheumatologists' discretion. At each visit we assessed T2T-implementation, defined as escalating DMARDs if DAS28-CRP >3.2. Patient-physician discordance was defined by the discordance score (DS), a weighted difference between patient-reported and clinical/laboratory outcomes. Using generalised linear mixed models and multilevel mediation analysis, we studied the association between time-varying DS, T2T-implementation and the odds of remission (SDAI ≤3.3), physical functioning (HAQ-score), and radiographic progression at year 2. RESULTS: Over 2 years, 379 patients were assessed at 3129 follow-up visits. On 445 (14%) of these visits, DAS28-CRP was >3.2, and DMARDs were escalated in 217/445 (49%) of such cases. T2T-implementation declined over time and was consistently lower during the second year (year 1: 57-66%; year 2: 17-52%). Higher DS over time was negatively associated with remission and physical functioning at year 2, partly mediated by a lower proportion of T2T-adherent visits. No such association was found for radiographic progression. CONCLUSION: Even in a trial setting, T2T was applied on only around 50% of visits. T2T was less likely to be implemented with increasing patient-physician discordance regarding disease activity, which was in turn associated with less remission and worse functional outcome, but not with radiographic progression.

Viewpoint: Supporting mental health in the current management of rheumatoid arthritis: time to act!

Although clinical outcomes of RA have vastly improved in recent years, the disease's mental health impact has seemingly not decreased to the same extent. Even today, learning to live with RA is an active process involving several psychological, cognitive, behavioural and emotional pathways. Consequently, mental health disorders are more common in the context of RA than in the general population, and can be particularly detrimental both to patients' quality of life and to clinical outcomes. However, mental health is a spectrum and represents more than the absence of psychological comorbidity, and supporting patients' psychological wellbeing should thus involve a more holistic perspective than the mere exclusion or specific treatment of mental health disorders. In this viewpoint article, we build on mechanistic and historical insights regarding the relationship between RA and mental health, before proposing a practical stepwise approach to supporting patients' mental health in daily clinical practice.

Effectiveness and feasibility of a mobile health self-management intervention in rheumatoid arthritis: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (AEGORA).

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) considerably impacts patients' lives. Patients' confidence in their ability to manage this impact, or self-efficacy, can be supported with self-management interventions. One approach is to use mobile health (mHealth) applications, which can additionally provide insight into disease impact by remotely monitoring patient-reported outcomes. However, user engagement with mHealth-apps is variable, and concerns exist that remote monitoring might make patients overly attentive to symptoms. METHODS: App-based Education and GOal setting in RA (AEGORA) is a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial investigating an mHealth-based self-management intervention to improve self-efficacy and remotely monitor disease impact in patients with RA. The intervention is provided via an adapted version of the application Sidekick (Sidekick Health, Reykjavik, Iceland) and consists of education, goal setting, lifestyle advice, and remote assessment of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire. Across two centres, 120 patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1:1) to usual care or intervention group A/B (study app with weekly/monthly prompts to complete the RAID, respectively). Outcomes are assessed at baseline and after 4-6 months. The primary endpoint is a clinically important improvement (≥ 5.5/110) in the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale in the combined intervention group compared to usual care. Secondary endpoints are (a) non-inferiority regarding pain catastrophising, as a measure of symptom hypervigilance; (b) superiority regarding the RAID, sleep quality, and physical activity; and (c) participant engagement with the study app. Finally, the relationship between engagement, prompted frequency of RAID questionnaires, and the primary and secondary outcomes will be explored. DISCUSSION: The AEGORA trial aims to study the effectiveness of mHealth-based, multicomponent self-management support to improve self-efficacy in the context of RA, while providing potentially valuable insights into temporal disease activity dynamics and the feasibility and possible negative effects of remote symptom monitoring in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05888181. Retrospectively registered on March 23, 2023. Study inclusion started on March 3, 2023.

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: A task force comprising 7 rheumatologists, 15 other healthcare professionals and 3 patients was established. Following a systematic literature review performed to inform the recommendations, statements were formulated, discussed during online meetings and graded based on risk of bias assessment, level of evidence (LoE) and strength of recommendation (SoR; scale A-D, A comprising consistent LoE 1 studies, D comprising LoE 4 or inconsistent studies), following the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology standard operating procedure. Level of agreement (LoA; scale 0-10, 0 denoting complete disagreement, 10 denoting complete agreement) was determined for each statement through online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and 12 recommendations were developed. These concerned common and disease-specific aspects of non-pharmacological management. SoR ranged from A to D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and recommendations ranged from 8.4 to 9.7. Briefly, non-pharmacological management of SLE and SSc should be tailored, person-centred and participatory. It is not intended to preclude but rather complement pharmacotherapy. Patients should be offered education and support for physical exercise, smoking cessation and avoidance of cold exposure. Photoprotection and psychosocial interventions are important for SLE patients, while mouth and hand exercises are important in SSc. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations will guide healthcare professionals and patients towards a holistic and personalised management of SLE and SSc. Research and educational agendas were developed to address needs towards a higher evidence level, enhancement of clinician-patient communication and improved outcomes.

Effects of filgotinib on semen parameters and sex hormones in male patients with inflammatory diseases: results from the phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled MANTA and MANTA-RAy studies.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 2 MANTA and MANTA-RAy studies aimed to determine if the oral Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor filgotinib affects semen parameters and sex hormones in men with inflammatory diseases. METHODS: MANTA (NCT03201445) and MANTA-RAy (NCT03926195) included men (21-65 years) with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis), respectively. Eligible participants had semen parameters in the normal range per the WHO definition. In each study, participants were randomised 1:1 to receive once-daily, double-blind filgotinib 200 mg or placebo for 13 weeks for pooled analysis of the primary endpoint (proportion of participants with a ≥50% decrease from baseline in sperm concentration at week 13). Participants who met the primary endpoint were monitored over an additional 52 weeks for 'reversibility'. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline to week 13 in: sperm concentration, total motility, normal morphology, total count and ejaculate volume. Sex hormones (luteinising hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, inhibin B and total testosterone) and reversibility were exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: Across both studies, 631 patients were screened, and 248 were randomised to filgotinib 200 mg or placebo. Baseline demographics and characteristics were similar within indications between treatment groups. Numerically similar proportions of filgotinib-treated versus placebo-treated patients met the primary endpoint (8/120 (6.7%) vs 10/120 (8.3%)), Δ-1.7% (95% CI -9.3% to 5.8%)). There were no clinically relevant changes from baseline to week 13 in semen parameters or sex hormones, or patterns of reversibility between treatment groups. Filgotinib was well tolerated, with no new safety events. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that once daily filgotinib 200 mg for 13 weeks has no measurable impact on semen parameters or sex hormones in men with active IBD or inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis: Balancing benefits and harm by leveraging the therapeutic window of opportunity.

Glucocorticoids have been available since the early 1950s and have since become an integral part of the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Due to their rapid effect, glucocorticoids have an appealing profile for treating flares or as "bridging" agents in early RA. The efficacy of glucocorticoids to treat RA has been well established, both to control disease activity and to delay the progression of joint damage. However, despite their benefits, glucocorticoids have equally well-known adverse effects. It is generally accepted that long-term use of glucocorticoids, particularly at higher doses, is not advisable, and recent guidelines for the management of RA therefore either recommend against the use of glucocorticoids or suggest using them only as bridging therapy. Perceptions on the harmful effects of glucocorticoids remain, although mainly based on observational studies. Prolonged glucocorticoid therapy at low doses is still highly prevalent in clinical practice, but recent data suggest a rather favourable risk-benefit balance for this strategy, even in senior patients. Balancing the benefits and risks of treating RA with glucocorticoids thus remains a somewhat controversial topic. This narrative review outlines the historical and current position of glucocorticoids in the management of RA, while summarising recent evidence on their beneficial and detrimental effects. Furthermore, practical strategies for the current use and tapering of glucocorticoids in RA are formulated.

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.

Validation and predictive capacity of a Dutch version of the FLARE-RA questionnaire within the context of a TNFi-tapering trial.

Flare Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis (FLARE-RA) is a self-administered tool aiming to capture current or recent flares in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to externally validate the FLARE-RA instrument and its existing cutoffs for flare detection within a bDMARD-tapering context in established RA. Data were analyzed from the Tapering Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis (TapERA) trial, which studied the feasibility of tapering etanercept in patients with established RA in sustained remission. The English FLARE-RA was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Dutch, and internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated with Crohnbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Participants completed the FLARE-RA 3-monthly for 12 months. Accuracy and optimal cutoffs of FLARE-RA to detect DAS28-defined flares were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Association of FLARE-RA scores with current and future flares was studied using logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE). The Dutch FLARE-RA showed excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.96; ICC 0.96 [95% CI 0.70-1.00]). Discriminatory capacity of FLARE-RA to detect flares was acceptable (AUC 0.77, 0.80, and 0.72 for global, arthritis, and general symptoms subscales, respectively), with an optimal global score cutoff of 4/10. In GEE-models, higher FLARE-RA scores were associated with increased odds of both current and future flares. We successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted the FLARE-RA into a Dutch version and validated its capacity to detect flares in a bDMARD-tapering context in established RA. Finally, higher FLARE-RA scores might indicate an increased risk of future flares.Trial registration: EU Clinical Trials Register, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-004631-22/BE , EudraCT number 2012-004,631-22. Key Points • Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the FLARE-RA resulted in a Dutch version with excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. • The FLARE-RA is a valid instrument to detect current OMERACT-defined flares within a bDMARD tapering setting, with an optimal global score cutoff of 4/10. • Higher scores on the FLARE-RA are associated with increased risk of future flares, which could be particularly relevant when considering DMARD tapering.

Filgotinib in rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) remains a challenge for rheumatologists and patients despite implementation of intensive treat-to-target strategies in shared decision with patients and an increasing availability of drugs. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are a new generation of oral targeted drugs. Filgotinib preferentially inhibits JAK1 and is the latest JAKi to be approved for use in RA. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review focuses on drug characteristics, efficacy, and safety of filgotinib in patients with RA, summarizing available literature. Trial data are detailed, put into perspective for practice and discussed in regulatory perspective. EXPERT OPINION: Preclinical studies demonstrate preferential inhibition of JAK1 and a promising pharmacokinetic profile with few drug-drug interactions. Increase in hemoglobin in line with preferential inhibition of JAK1 over JAK2 is seen in early-phase clinical trials. A phase III program demonstrates efficacy in several disease stages, numerically higher with 200 mg versus 100 mg daily. In the overall RA population such dose-related effect is not observed for safety except for herpes zoster and increases in lipids and creatine phosphokinase. This reassuring safety profile is to be confirmed in future practice. It also needs to be unraveled if JAK1 preferential inhibition plays a key role in this safety profile.