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.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

What benefit-risk trade-offs are acceptable to rheumatoid arthritis patients during treatment selection? Evidence from a multicountry choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can facilitate tailored patient-centric care. This study elicited trade-offs that patients with RA were willing to make during treatment selection. METHODS: Patients with RA completed an online discrete choice experiment, consisting of a series of choices between hypothetical treatments. Treatment attributes were selected based on literature review and qualitative patient interviews. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, diagnosed with RA, receiving systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, and residents of Europe or USA. Male patients were oversampled for subgroup analyses. Data were analysed using a correlated mixed logit model. RESULTS: Of 2090 participants, 42% were female; mean age was 45.2 years (range 18-83). Estimated effects were significant for all attributes (p<0.001) but varied between patients. Average relative attribute importance scores revealed different priorities (p<0.001) between males and females. While reducing pain and negative effect on semen parameters was most important to males, females were most concerned by risk of blood clots and serious infections. No single attribute explained treatment preferences by more than 30%. Preferences were also affected by patients' age: patients aged 18-44 years placed less importance on frequency and mode of treatment administration (p<0.05) than older age groups. Patients were willing to accept higher risk of serious infections and blood clots in exchange for improvements in pain, daily activities or administration convenience. However, acceptable trade-offs varied between patients (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Treatment preferences of patients with RA were individual-specific, but driven by benefits and risks, with no single attribute dominating the decision-making.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Generating a list of potentially important contextual factors covering randomized trials, cohorts, and measurement property studies: An OMERACT initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To generate candidates for contextual factors (CFs) for each CF type (i.e., Effect Modifying Contextual Factors (EM-CFs), Outcome Influencing Contextual Factors (OI-CFs), and Measurement Affecting Contextual Factors (MA-CFs)) considered important within rheumatology. METHODS: We surveyed OMERACT working groups and conducted a Special Interest Group (SIG) session at the OMERACT 2023 meeting, where the results were reviewed, and additional CFs suggested. RESULTS: The working groups suggested 44, 49, and 21 generic EM-CFs, OI-CFs, and MA-CFs, respectively. SIG participants added 49, 44, and 55 factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Candidate CFs were identified, next step is a consensus-based set of endorsed (important) CFs.

Comparative Effectiveness, Time to Discontinuation, and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Baricitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: 2-Year Data from the Multinational, Prospective Observational RA-BE-REAL Study in European Patients.

INTRODUCTION: RA-BE-REAL is a 3-year, multinational, prospective, observational study of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) evaluating time to discontinuation of initial RA treatment along with patient baseline characteristics. This study's primary objective was to assess the time to discontinuation of initial baricitinib, any other targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (tsDMARD), or any biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) treatment for all causes (excluding sustained clinical response) over 24 months in a European population. METHODS: Patients initiated treatment with baricitinib (cohort A) or any bDMARD or tsDMARD (cohort B) for the first time. This study's primary objective was to assess the time to discontinuation of initial baricitinib, any other targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (tsDMARD), or any biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) treatment for all causes (excluding sustained clinical response) over 24 months in a European population. Comparative effectiveness analyses, over 24 months, included time to treatment discontinuation for all causes (excluding sustained clinical response), percentage of patients achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission or low disease activity (LDA), as well as mean changes from baseline for CDAI, pain visual analogue scale, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). For this European subpopulation, comparative analyses were performed using a frequentist model averaging (FMA) framework based on a data-driven machine learning causal inference approach to compare time to discontinuation, effectiveness, rates of remission or LDA, and patient-reported outcomes over 24 months comparing baricitinib with TNFi, as well as non-TNFi and tsDMARD grouped as other mechanism of action (OMA) drugs. RESULTS: In the European sample of RA-BE-REAL, patients with RA treated with baricitinib experienced fewer discontinuations in comparison to those treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors or OMA. Overall, patients naïve to b/tsDMARDs achieved a higher rate of LDA and remission compared with experienced patients. A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with baricitinib achieved LDA compared with b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSION: This real-world data can better inform clinicians about baricitinib effectiveness and drug survival when prescribing treatment for patients with RA across different subpopulations.

The Adherence and Outcomes Benefits of Using a Connected, Reusable Auto-Injector for Self-Injecting Biologics: A Narrative Review.

Many biologics are now self-administered by patients at home. A variety of self-injection devices are available, including vials and syringes, prefilled syringes, and spring-driven prefilled pens or auto-injectors. Each has advantages and drawbacks, and different devices suit different patients. For example, some patients have difficulty achieving consistent and successful self-injection due to poor manual dexterity, or experience anxiety at the prospect of self-injection or injection-site pain. These factors can reduce patients' medication adherence and overall experience. Furthermore, while self-injection brings patients many benefits, the proliferation of single-use injection devices has implications for environmental sustainability, including the reliance on single-use plastics, repeated freighting requirements, and need for incineration as hazardous waste. Recently developed, innovative electromechanical auto-injector devices offer technological enhancements over existing devices to overcome some of these issues. Features include customisable injection speeds or durations, consistent rate of injection, electronic injection logs and reminders, and step-by-step, real-time instructions. Indeed, a growing body of evidence points to higher adherence rates among patients using electromechanical devices compared with other devices. Further, with time, the reusability of electromechanical devices may prove to lighten the environmental impact compared with disposable devices, especially as research continues to optimise their sustainability, driven by increased consumer demands for environmental responsibility. This narrative review discusses the differences between prefilled syringes, spring-driven prefilled pens, and electromechanical devices. It also explores how these features may help reduce injection-associated pain and anxiety, improve patient experience, connectivity and adherence, and drive sustainability of biologic drugs in future.

Biologics are a type of medicine becoming widespread in the treatment of many diverse diseases. Biologics are injected under the skin and can sometimes be injected by patients themselves at home. Many injection devices are available to help patients with this self-injection, and fall into three broad categories: prefilled syringes, prefilled pens, and electromechanical devices. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and different devices suit different patients. For example, some patients have difficulty achieving consistent and successful self-injection because of limited hand movement or become anxious at the prospect of self-injection or injection-site pain. These factors can reduce patients' ability and willingness to take medication as prescribed and may worsen their overall experience. Further, many disposable devices involve single-use plastics and may pose an environmental toll. Reusable electromechanical devices are the newest of the available devices and offer enhanced features over some earlier devices. These include customisable injection speeds or durations, consistent rates of injection, electronic injection logs, reminders, and real-time instructions. Evidence suggests that patients using electromechanical devices may have higher rates of adherence (i.e. more patients take their medication as prescribed) than those using other devices. Additionally, with time and further research, the reusability of electromechanical devices may prove to lighten the environmental impact compared with disposable devices. Here we discuss the differences between prefilled pens, prefilled syringes, and electromechanical devices, and explore the features that may help reduce injection-associated pain and anxiety, improve patient experience, connectivity, and adherence, and drive greater sustainability.

A JAK Inhibitor for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Baricitinib Experience.

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provides improvements in clinical signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes. Currently, baricitinib is approved for treating RA in more than 75 countries. In several pivotal Phase II and III RA trials (RA-BALANCE, RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, RA-BUILD, RA-BEACON, RA-BEYOND), up to seven years of baricitinib treatment was well tolerated and provided rapid and sustained efficacy, which was confirmed in real-world settings. Safety signals for another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, have emerged, as observed in the post-marketing Phase IIIb/IV trial Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance; safety signals were subsequently highlighted in a retrospective study of baricitinib and consequently new recommendations and warnings and precautions for all JAK inhibitors have been issued. Ongoing studies to further characterise and clarify the benefit:risk of JAK inhibitors include registries and controlled trials. This capstone review summarises clinical and real-world data outlining the benefit:risk profile of baricitinib, confirming that the improved disease activity and physical function of patients with RA treated with this JAK inhibitor observed in clinical trials is translated into effectiveness in clinical practice, with a low rate of discontinuations.

Physical Function of RA patients Tapering Treatment-A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized Controlled RETRO Trial.

Several studies have shown that tapering or stopping disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in sustained remission is feasible. However, tapering/stopping bears the risk of decline in physical function as some patients may relapse and face increased disease activity. Here, we analyzed the impact of tapering or stopping DMARD treatment on the physical function of RA patients. The study was a post hoc analysis of physical functional worsening for 282 patients with RA in sustained remission tapering and stopping DMARD treatment in the prospective randomized RETRO study. HAQ and DAS-28 scores were determined in baseline samples of patients continuing DMARD (arm 1), tapering their dose by 50% (arm 2), or stopping after tapering (arm 3). Patients were followed over 1 year, and HAQ and DAS-28 scores were evaluated every 3 months. The effect of treatment reduction strategy on functional worsening was assessed in a recurrent-event Cox regression model with a study-group (control, taper, and taper/stop) as the predictor. Two-hundred and eighty-two patients were analyzed. In 58 patients, functional worsening was observed. The incidences suggest a higher probability of functional worsening in patients tapering and/or stopping DMARDs, which is likely due to higher relapse rates in these individuals. At the end of the study, however, functional worsening was similar among the groups. Point estimates and survival curves show that the decline in functionality according to HAQ after tapering or discontinuation of DMARDs in RA patients with stable remission is associated with recurrence, but not with an overall functional decline.

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in routine clinical practice in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: 2-year retention and efficacy by treatment line and serostatus.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: The ASCORE study on treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed better retention and clinical response rates for abatacept as first-line versus later-line therapy. This post hoc analysis of ASCORE assessed 2-year retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. METHODS: Adults with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were assessed. Primary endpoint was abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportions of patients with low disease activity (LDA)/remission per Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (≤ 3.2), Simplified Disease Activity Index (≤ 11), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (≤ 10). Outcomes were analyzed by treatment line and serostatus. RESULTS: For the pooled cohort, the 2-year abatacept retention rate was 47.6%; retention was highest in biologic-naïve patients (50.5% [95% confidence interval 44.9, 55.9]). Patients seropositive for both anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF; + / +) at baseline had a higher 2-year abatacept retention rate than patients with single seropositivity for either APCA or RF or double-seronegativity (- / -), irrespective of treatment line. At 2 years, a higher proportion of patients who were biologic-naïve were in LDA/remission than patients with one or ≥ two prior biologics. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of patients with + / + RA (compared with - / - RA) had abatacept retention after 2 years. Early identification of patients with seropositive RA may facilitate a precision-medicine approach to RA treatment, leading to a higher proportion of patients in LDA/remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02090556; date registered: March 18, 2014 (retrospectively registered). Key Points • This post hoc analysis of a German-speaking subset of European patients with RA from the global ASCORE study (NCT02090556) showed that retention of SC abatacept within this subset was 47.6%, with good clinical outcomes after 2 years. • Patients with double-seropositive RA (ACPA and RF positive) had higher retention of abatacept than patients with double-seronegative RA (ACPA and RF negative). Retention and clinical responses were highest for patients who were biologic-naïve compared with patients who had one or ≥ two prior biologic treatments. • These real-world data may be useful for clinicians in informing individualized treatment pathways for patients with RA, and fostering superior disease control and clinical outcomes.

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

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

Baricitinib Safety for Events of Special Interest in Populations at Risk: Analysis from Randomised Trial Data Across Rheumatologic and Dermatologic Indications.

INTRODUCTION: Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, is an approved treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), atopic dermatitis (AD), and alopecia areata (AA). Further characterisation of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for JAK inhibitors in at-risk populations will improve benefit-risk assessment for individual patients and diseases. METHODS: Data were pooled from clinical trials and long-term extensions in moderate-to-severe active RA, moderate-to-severe AD, and severe AA. Incidence rates (IR) per 100 patient-years of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), malignancy, venous thromboembolism (VTE), serious infection, and mortality were calculated for patients with low risk (younger than 65 years with no specified risk factors), and patients at risk (≥ 1 of: aged 65 years or older, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, current smoking, HDL cholesterol < 40 mg/dL, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, poor mobility on EQ-5D, or history of malignancy). RESULTS: Datasets included baricitinib exposure up to 9.3 years with 14,744 person-years of exposure (PYE) (RA), 3.9 years with 4628 PYE (AD), and 3.1 years with 1868 PYE (AA). In patients with low risk (RA: 31%, AD: 48%, AA: 49%), IRs for MACE (0.05, 0.04, 0), malignancies (0.20, 0.13, 0), VTE (0.09, 0.04, 0), serious infection (1.73, 1.18, 0.6), and mortality (0.04, 0, 0) in the RA, AD, and AA datasets, respectively, were low. In patients at risk (RA: 69%, AD: 52%, AA: 51%), IRs were for MACE (0.70, 0.25, 0.10), malignancies (1.23, 0.45, 0.31), VTE (0.66, 0.12, 0.10), serious infection (2.95, 2.30, 1.05), and mortality (0.78, 0.16, 0) for RA, AD, and AA datasets, respectively. CONCLUSION: Populations with low risk have low incidence of the examined JAK inhibitor-related AESI. In the dermatologic indications, incidence is also low for patients at risk. Considering individual disease burden, risk factors, and response to treatment is relevant to make informed decisions for individual patients treated with baricitinib.

High Usability and Applicability Ratings for the New SmartClic®/ClicWise® Injection Device: Evidence from a Health Care Professional Opinion Study.

INTRODUCTION: The SmartClic®/ClicWise® autoinjector is a new reusable, multi-use, single-patient device for the administration of subcutaneously administered biologics in the treatment of chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis. The device will be used in conjunction with a mobile application (app). The aim of this study was to collect feedback on the usability, functionality, and applicability of the device and the companion app from health care professionals (HCPs) who perform injections as part of their role and care for patients with rheumatic conditions. METHODS: The study was conducted from September to October 2020 in Germany. HCPs participated in a training session for the device and gained experience by performing simulated injections with water. Following the simulations, HCPs answered questions on the ease of use, feature design, effectiveness, and injection speed of the SmartClic/ClicWise device and estimate the patient training time required. They also answered questions on the functionality of the proposed app after attending a storyboard presentation. Responses were recorded as multiple-choice answers, Likert scale ratings (seven-point scale), or open-ended comments. The mean, median, and mode scores were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-five HCPs (mean age, 38.2 years; females, n = 22 [88%]; registered nurses, n = 19 [76%]) participated in the study. HCP feedback on questions related to the SmartClic/ClicWise device was positive overall, with mean scores > 4.50 across questions; mean scores < 5.00 were reported on 2/40 questions. Twenty-four of 25 participants (96%) estimated that a training time of ≤ 20 min would suffice for patients learning to use the device. Positive feedback was also reported on questions related to the companion app, with mean scores > 5.70. CONCLUSIONS: Initial feedback from HCPs on the SmartClic/ClicWise device and proposed app was generally favorable, suggesting they will provide an acceptable alternative for self-administration of biologics for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic conditions.

The RA-BE-REAL Multinational, Prospective, Observational Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Baricitinib, Targeted Synthetic, or Biologic Disease-Modifying Therapies: a 6-Month Interim Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: RA-BE-REAL has the overall aim of defining a profile of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting baricitinib or any other targeted synthetic (ts) or any biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) for the first time, and the primary objective of estimating time until discontinuation from any cause (excluding sustained response) of the initial treatment. METHODS: RA-BE-REAL is an ongoing, prospective, observational, 36-month study in patients with RA initiating treatment with baricitinib (cohort A) or any other tsDMARD or any bDMARD (cohort B) for the first time. The primary objective is to assess the time until treatment discontinuation from any cause (excluding sustained response) at 24 months, (i.e., the rate of discontinuation of initial baricitinib or ts/bDMARD). Patient profiles of each cohort are described and compared. Post-baseline data are descriptively analyzed. This manuscript presents baseline and interim (6-month) outcomes for European patients with RA participating in the global RA-BE-REAL study. RESULTS: Data from 1074 patients (cohort A: 509; cohort B: 565) were analyzed. For cohorts A and B, respectively, the 6-month cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of treatment discontinuation was 16.5 (12.9-21.1) and 23.3 (19.1-28.2), and the proportions of patients achieving remission were 25.6% and 18.5%. At baseline, mean patient age was 59.1 and 57.0 years (p = 0.010) and mean disease duration was 10.0 and 8.9 years (p = 0.047), respectively. The proportions of patients exposed to ts/bDMARDs at any time before study entry were 51.9% and 39.1%, and the proportions of patients initiated on monotherapy were 50.9% and 31.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In real-world settings, patients with RA initiating treatment with baricitinib were older and had longer disease duration than those initiating treatment with any other tsDMARD or any bDMARD. Initial descriptive data regarding treatment discontinuation (including reasons for discontinuation), effectiveness, and treatment patterns will be enriched as the study progresses.

Eosinophilic fasciitis (Shulman syndrome)-recognition of the histological spectrum allows for new insights into possible pathomechanisms.

OBJECTIVES: EF is a rare disease characterized by fibrosis and inflammation of the fascia, scleroderma-like skin indurations and optional blood eosinophilia. We aimed to expand the knowledge about its aetiology and pathogenesis. METHODS: Biopsy specimens from 16 EF patients were assessed by histology, immunohistochemistry and quantitative reverse transcription PCR in comparison with anti-Mi-2+ DM patients and non-disease controls. RESULTS: Histologically, EF shows mild to severe inflammation at the muscle-fascia interface, with frequent involvement of the underlying muscle tissue, though varying in degree. CD206+ macrophages predominate and eosinophils are detected within the fascia in the majority of cases, however in quite small numbers, and seen infrequently within the muscle. Activators of the so-called Th2-M2 pathway like STAT6 and IL-4 are upregulated leading to high expression levels of CD206. Activators of the so-called Th1-M1 pathway like STAT1 and IFN-γ (IFNG) are also upregulated, though not translating into a significant upregulation of the effector molecule COX2. Interestingly, activators or chemoattractants of eosinophils show no significant upregulation in EF compared with DM. EF shows features of perifascicular pathology comparable to DM, with upregulation of MHC class I and II; however, this is not accompanied by perifascicular atrophy or any signs of a type I IFN response or hypoxia-mediated processes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight a specific immune phenotype of leucocyte infiltrates in EF along features of perifascicular pathology similar to DM, while there is no evidence of hypoxia-mediated or type I IFN-associated processes with perifascicular fibre atrophy, indicating different pathomechanisms of muscle involvement.

Effectiveness of Different Rituximab Doses Combined with Leflunomide in the Treatment or Retreatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Part 2 of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial (AMARA).

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of rituximab in combination with leflunomide in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known. METHODS: In Part 1 (previously reported) of the investigator-initiated AMARA study (EudraCT 2009-015950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01244958), improvements at week (W)24 were observed in patients randomized to rituximab + leflunomide compared with placebo + leflunomide. In the study reported here (Part 2), Part 1 responders received rituximab 500 or 1000 mg at W24/26 plus ongoing leflunomide. Patients were randomized at baseline to their eventual W24 treatment group. The Part 2 primary outcome was the mean Disease Activity Score-28 joints (DAS28) at W52, based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) analyses and a two-sided analysis of variance. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients received rituximab at W24/26 (31 rituximab→rituximab 1000 mg; 29 rituximab→rituximab 500 mg; 10 placebo→rituximab 1000 mg; 13 placebo→rituximab 500 mg). At W52, there were no significant differences in DAS28 between rituximab doses in patients originally treated with rituximab or those originally treated with placebo. In the Part 1 placebo group, the higher rituximab dose was associated with greater improvements in ACR response rates and some PROs. Adverse events were similar regardless of rituximab dose. CONCLUSIONS: Retreatment with rituximab 500 mg and 1000 mg showed comparable efficacy, whereas an initial dose of rituximab 500 mg was associated with lower response rates versus 1000 mg. Reduced treatment response with the lower dose in patients initially treated with placebo may have been influenced by small numbers and baseline disease activity.

Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis: a real-world study of the application and impact of treat-to-target within the wider context of patient management, patient centricity and advanced therapy use in Europe.

BACKGROUND: While treat-to-target (T2T) is endorsed for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), data on the degree of implementation in clinical practice are limited. This study investigated the use of T2T for RA in a real-world setting across Europe. METHODS: The Adelphi RA Disease-Specific Programme was a point-in-time survey of rheumatologists and their consulting patients with RA conducted between January and October 2020 in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Rheumatologists completed an attitudinal survey, and a record form for their next 10-12 consulting patients, who were invited to voluntarily complete a patient-reported questionnaire. Data collected included clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and attitudes towards T2T. RESULTS: Overall, 316 rheumatologists provided data for 3120 patients, of whom 1108 completed the questionnaire. While 86.1% of rheumatologists estimated using T2T principles in clinical practice, only 66.6% of patients were reported by their physician to be managed using a T2T approach. Achieving disease remission was the most commonly reported treatment goal identified by rheumatologists (79.7%), followed by symptom control (47.8%) and reducing impact on quality of life (44.5%). 40.8% of rheumatologists and their patients were in agreement that a treatment goal had been set. When there was agreement on treatment goals, we observed better patient satisfaction, engagement and treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations, the T2T approach in RA appears to be suboptimally implemented in clinical practice. This highlights the importance of patient-centricity in the decision-making process to define meaningful targets and select appropriate treatments to improve disease outcomes.

Managing inadequate response to initial anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: optimising treatment outcomes.

Anti-tumour necrosis factors (anti-TNFs) are established as first-line biological therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with over two decades of accumulated clinical experience. Anti-TNFs have well established efficacy/safety profiles along with additional benefits on various comorbidities. However, up to 40% of patients may respond inadequately to an initial anti-TNF treatment because of primary non-response, loss of response, or intolerance. Following inadequate response (IR) to anti-TNF treatment, clinicians can consider switching to an alternative anti-TNF (cycling) or to another class of targeted drug with a different mechanism of action, such as Janus kinase inhibitors, interleukin-6 receptor blockers, B-cell depletion agents, and co-stimulation inhibitors (swapping). While European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for pharmacotherapeutic management of RA, published in 2020, are widely regarded as helpful guides to clinical practice, they do not provide any clear recommendations on therapeutic choices following an IR to first-line anti-TNF. This suggests that both cycling and swapping treatment strategies are of equal value, but that the treating physician must take the patient's individual characteristics into account. This article considers which patient characteristics influence clinical decision-making processes, including the reason for treatment failure, previous therapies, comorbidities, extra-articular manifestations, pregnancy, patient preference and cost-effectiveness, and what evidence is available to support decisions made by the physician.