Effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors compared with biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on pain reduction in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from a nationwide Swedish cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) on pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this retrospective study, we investigated patients with a diagnosis of RA, starting treatment with a JAKi (n=1827), TNF inhibitor (TNFi, n=6422), IL-6 inhibitor (n=887), abatacept (n=1102) or rituximab (n=1149) in 2017-2019, using data from several linked Swedish national registers. Differences in change in pain, assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0-100 mm), from baseline to 3 months, as well as proportions of patients remaining on initial treatment with low pain (VAS pain <20) at 12 months, were compared between treatments. Comparisons of treatment responses between JAKis and bDMARDs were evaluated using multivariable linear regression, adjusted for patient characteristics, comorbidities, current co-medication and previous treatment. RESULTS: JAKi treatment was associated with a greater decrease in pain at 3 months compared with TNFi treatment (adjusted mean additional decrease: 4.0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 6.3), with similar trends in comparisons with non-TNFi bDMARDs. More patients achieved low pain at 12 months on JAKis compared with TNFis, in particular among those previously treated with ≥2 bDMARDs (adjusted change contrast: 5.3 percentage points; 95% CI 1.0, 9.6). CONCLUSION: JAKis had a slightly better effect on pain outcomes at 3 and 12 months compared with TNFis, with significantly greater differences in patients previously treated with ≥2 bDMARDs. The effect of JAKis on pain reduction was at least similar to that of non-TNFi bDMARDs.

Effect of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events on outcome in melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy-a retrospective and biomarker study.

Background: Immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) during therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are common, and their management sometimes requires glucocorticoids (GCs). Predictors for development of IRAEs and data about the impact of GCs on clinical outcome are missing. We evaluated the impact of GCs to treat IRAEs on clinical outcome, and plasmatic inflammatory proteins as predictors for IRAEs. Patients and methods: Patients with melanoma (n = 98) treated with ICIs at Karolinska University Hospital were included. Clinical information and data regarding prescription of systemic GCs were collected. Baseline plasma samples (n = 57) were analyzed for expression of 92 inflammatory proteins. Results: Forty-four patients developed at least one IRAE requiring systemic GCs and the most common was hypocortisolemia (n = 11). A median overall survival of 72.8 months for patients developing IRAEs requiring GCs, 17.7 months for those who did not, and 1.4 months for individuals receiving GCs at baseline was observed in Kaplan-Meier curves (P = 0.001). In immortal time bias adjusted analysis, patients receiving steroids to treat IRAE survived slightly longer, even though this time trend was not statistically significant. The median overall survival was 29 months for those treated with GCs within 60 days after ICIs start and was not reached for patients receiving GCs later. The number of ICI cycles was higher in subjects receiving GCs after 60 days (P = 0.0053). Hypocortisolemia occurred mainly in males (10/11) and correlated with favorable outcome. Male patients with hypocortisolemia had lower expression of interleukin 8, transforming growth factor-α, and fibroblast growth factor 5 and higher expression of Delta/Notch-like epidermal growth factor-related receptor. Conclusions: GCs may be used to treat IRAEs without major concern. GCs early during ICIs may, however, impact clinical outcome negatively. The prognostic value of hypocortisolemia and inflammation proteins as biomarkers should be further investigated.

Determinants of tofacitinib discontinuation in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis during long-term extension studies up to 9.5 years.

Objectives: To examine determinants of tofacitinib discontinuation due to voluntary (i.e. patient-driven) or involuntary reasons (i.e. protocol mandated) in long-term extension (LTE) studies of patients with RA to inform clinical practice, clinical study execution and data capture. Methods: This post hoc analysis used pooled data from patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) in LTE studies. Outcomes included time to voluntary/involuntary discontinuation (and baseline predictors), including by geographic region. Exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) were calculated for adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs) and discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs. Results: Of 4967 patients, 2463 (49.6%) discontinued [1552/4967 (31.2%) voluntarily, 911/4967 (18.3%) involuntarily] and 55 (1.1%) died over the course of 9.5 years. When involuntary discontinuation was present as a competing risk for voluntary discontinuation, patients who stayed on combination therapy and with higher patient-assessed pain were significantly more likely to discontinue for voluntary reasons (P < 0.05). Older patients, those enrolled in Asia, Europe or Latin America (vs USA or Canada) or with RF+/anti-CCP+ status were significantly less likely to discontinue for voluntary reasons (P < 0.05). Small numeric differences in disease activity were observed between geographic regions in patients who discontinued or completed the studies. EAERs were generally higher for tofacitinib 10 vs 5 mg BID, irrespective of discontinuation reason. Conclusion: The factors associated with voluntary/involuntary discontinuation of tofacitinib suggest that treatment persistence in RA studies is partly predictable, which may be reflected in clinical practice. Applying these results may improve our understanding of attrition and inform future study design/execution. Trial registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT00413699 and NCT00661661.

Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants for immune-related adverse events and checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate an association between immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and impaired survival in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Whether this is related to corticosteroids or second-line immunosuppressants is unknown. In the largest cohort thus far, we assessed the association of immunosuppressant type and dose with survival in melanoma patients with irAEs. METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma who received immunosuppressants for irAEs induced by first-line anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA-4 were included from 18 hospitals worldwide. Associations of cumulative and peak dose corticosteroids and use of second-line immunosuppression with survival from start of immunosuppression were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: Among 606 patients, 404 had anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-related irAEs and 202 had anti-PD-1-related irAEs. 425 patients (70 %) received corticosteroids only; 181 patients (30 %) additionally received second-line immunosuppressants. Median PFS and OS from starting immunosuppression were 4.5 (95 %CI 3.4-8.1) and 31 (95 %CI 15-not reached) months in patients who received second-line immunosuppressants, and 11 (95 %CI 9.4-14) and 55 (95 %CI 41-not reached) months in patients who did not. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS and OS (HRadj 1.14; 95 %CI 1.01-1.29; HRadj 1.29; 95 %CI 1.12-1.49 for 80vs40mg), while cumulative dose was not. Second-line immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (HRadj 1.32; 95 %CI 1.02-1.72) and OS (HRadj 1.34; 95 %CI 0.99-1.82) compared with corticosteroids alone. CONCLUSIONS: High corticosteroid peak dose and second-line immunosuppressants to treat irAEs are both associated with impaired survival. While immunosuppression is indispensable for treatment of severe irAEs, clinicians should weigh possible detrimental effects on survival against potential disadvantages of undertreatment.

Factors associated with non-adherence to medications in systemic lupus erythematosus: Results from a Swedish survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify determinants of medication non-adherence in a Swedish population of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Patients with SLE from Karolinska and Örebro University Hospitals participated in a survey-based cross-sectional study. Demographics, disease activity, organ damage, HRQoL (LupusQol, EQ-5D-5 L), medication non-adherence (<80% on CQR-19 or MASRI) and beliefs about medicines (BMQ) were registered. MASRI was used to report adherence to different drugs/drug classes, categorised into (i) antimalarial agents (AMA), (ii) glucocorticoids and (iii) other SLE medications. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, disease activity and organ damage. RESULTS: Among 205 respondents, the median age was 52.0 years (IQR: 34.0-70.0), 86.3% were women, 66.8% were non-adherent to their medications according to CQR-19, and 6.6% and 6.3% were non-adherent to AMA and glucocorticoids, respectively, according to MASRI. Positive beliefs about glucocorticoids (OR; 95% CI: 0.77; 0.59-0.99; p = .039) and medications overall (0.71; 0.52-0.97; p = .029) were protective against non-adherence to glucocorticoids. Anxiety/depression (3.09; 1.12-8.54; p = .029), medication concerns (1.12; 1.05-1.20; p < .001) and belief that medications are overused (1.30; 1.15-1.46; p < .001) or harmful (1.36; 1.19-1.56; p < .001) were associated with medication non-adherence (CQR-19); beliefs in the necessity of medications (0.73; 0.65-0.82; p < .001) and positive beliefs in medications were protective (0.72; 0.60-0.86; p < .001). No associations were found between other investigated factors and medication non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about medications were a major determinant of medication non-adherence. Patient education may help alleviate the negative impact of misinformation/unawareness on adherence.

The serological immunogenicity of the third and fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases on different biologic or targeted DMARDs: a Swedish nationwide study (COVID-19-REUMA).

Studies investigating the immunogenicity of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are still limited. The objective was to explore the antibody response including response to omicron virus subvariants (sBA.1 and sBS.2) after third and fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses in Swedish IRD patients treated with immunomodulating drugs compared to controls. Antibody levels to spike wild-type antigens (full-length protein and S1) and the omicron variants sBA.1 and sBA.2 (full-length proteins) were measured. A positive response was defined as having antibody levels over cut-off or ≥fourfold increase in post-vaccination levels for both antigens. Patients with arthritis, vasculitis, and other autoimmune diseases (n = 414), and controls (n = 61) receiving biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with or without conventional synthetic DMARDs participated. Of these, blood samples were available for 370 patients and 52 controls after three doses, and 65 patients and 15 controls after four doses. Treatment groups after three vaccine doses were rituximab (n = 133), abatacept (n = 22), IL6r inhibitors (n = 71), JAnus Kinase inhibitors (JAK-inhibitors) (n = 56), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-inhibitors) (n = 61), IL12/23/17 inhibitors (n = 27), and controls (n = 52). The percentage of responders after three and four vaccine doses was lower in rituximab-treated patients (59% and 57%) compared to controls (100%) (P < 0.001). After three doses, the percentage of responders in all other groups was 100%, including response to omicron sBA.1 and sBA.2. In rituximab-treated patients, higher baseline immunoglobulin G (IgG) and longer time-period between rituximab and vaccination predicted better response. In this Swedish nationwide study including IRD patients three and four COVID-19 vaccine doses were immunogenic in patients treated with IL6r inhibitors, TNF-inhibitors, JAK-inhibitors, and IL12/23/17-inhibitors but not in rituximab. As >50% of rituximab patients responded to vaccines including omicron subvariants, these patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. IMPORTANCE: Results from this study provide further evidence that additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines are immunogenic and result in satisfactory antibody response in a majority of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) receiving potent immunomodulating treatments such as biological or targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) given as monotherapy or combined with traditional DMARDs. We observed that rituximab treatment, both as monotherapy and combined with csDMARDs, impaired antibody response, and only roughly 50% of patients developed a satisfactory antibody response including response to omicron subvariants after the third vaccine. In addition, higher IgG levels at the last rituximab course before the third vaccine dose and a longer time after the last rituximab treatment increased the chance of a satisfactory antibody response. These results indicate that rituximab-treated patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. CLINICAL TRIALS: EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) with number 2021-000880-63.

Anakinra or tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe covid-19 at high risk of deterioration (IMMCoVA): A randomized, controlled, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Anakinra and tocilizumab are used for severe Covid-19, but only one previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has studied both. We performed a multi-center RCT comparing anakinra or tocilizumab versus usual care (UC) for adults at high risk of deterioration. METHODS: The study was conducted June 2020 to March 2021. Eligibility required ≥ 5 liters/minute of Oxygen to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation at ≥ 93%, CRP > 70 mg/L, ferritin > 500 µg/L and at least two points where one point was awarded for lymphocytes < 1x 109/L; D-dimer ≥ 0.5 mg/L and; lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 8 microkatal/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive either a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or anakinra 100 mg IV QID for seven days or UC alone. The primary outcome was time to recovery. RESULTS: Recruitment was ended prematurely when tocilizumab became part of usual care. Out of a planned 195 patients, 77 had been randomized, 27 to UC, 28 to anakinra and 22 to tocilizumab. Median time to recovery was 15, 15 and 11 days. Rate ratio for recovery for UC vs anakinra was 0.91, 0.47 to 1.78, 95% [CI], p = 0.8 and for UC vs tocilizumab 1.13, 0.55 to 2.30; p = 0.7. There were non-significant trends favoring tocilizumab (and to limited degree anakinra) vs UC for some secondary outcomes. Safety profiles did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Premature closure of trial precludes firm conclusions. Anakinra or tocilizumab did not significantly shorten time to clinical recovery compared to usual care. (IMMCoVA, NCT04412291, EudraCT: 2020-00174824).

Are JAKis more effective among elderly patients with RA, smokers and those with higher cardiovascular risk? A comparative effectiveness study of b/tsDMARDs in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the relative effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis differ by the presence or absence of risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease, age, sex and smoking. METHODS: Through Swedish registers, we identified 13 493 individuals with 3166 JAKi, 5575 non-TNFi and 11 286 TNFi treatment initiations 2016-2022. All lines of therapy were included, with the majority in second line or higher. Treatment response was defined as the proportion reaching European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) good response and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission, respectively, within 6 months. Crude percentage point differences in these proportions (JAKis, and non-TNFis, vs TNFis) overall and by risk factors were observed, and adjusted for confounders using linear regression models. Predicted probabilities of response and remission were estimated from adjusted Poisson models, and presented across CV risk and age. RESULTS: Overall, adjusted percentage point differences indicated higher response (+5.0%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.9%) and remission (+5.8%, 95% CI 3.2% to 8.5%) with JAKis versus TNFis. The adjusted percentage point differences for response in those above 65, at elevated CV risk, and smokers were +5.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 9.0%), +8.3% (95% CI 5.3% to 11.4%) and +6.0% (95% CI 3.3% to 8.7%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for remission were +8.0% (95% CI 5.3% to 10.8%), +5.6% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.2%) and +7.6% (95% CI 5.5% to 9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: As used in clinical practice, response and remission at 6 months with JAKis are higher than with TNFi. Among patients with risk factors of concern, effectiveness is similar or numerically further increased. For individualised benefit-to-risk ratios to guide treatment choice, safety and effectiveness in specific patient segments should be considered.

Intracardiac Thrombi in Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet in Two Swedish Patients.

Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet (MAB) is an inflammatory disease typically manifesting with oral and genital aphthosis, erythema nodosum, and vasculopathy, and in only around 2%, cardiac involvement. Its prevalence is usually higher along the historic Silk Road, but rarer in Scandinavia where 0.64-4.9 in 100,000 people are affected. We herein present two Swedish patients with cardiac manifestations of Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet. Along with the intracardial thrombi, which both patients presented with, one patient also had cerebrovascular insults leading to visual field deficits as well as involvement of peripheral nerves. Being of Scandinavian origin and showing uncommon symptoms as their initial manifestations of MAB, the 62- and 35-year-old patients presenting herein constitute rare cases.

The impact of immunomodulating treatment on the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases compared to healthy controls. A Swedish nationwide study (COVID19-REUMA).

OBJECTIVES: To elucidate antibody responses after the second and third dose of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) treated with biologic/targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs). METHODS: Antibody levels to antigens representing spike full length protein and spike S1 were measured before vaccination, 2-12 weeks after the second dose, before and after the third dose using multiplex bead-based serology assay. Positive antibody response was defined as antibody levels over cut off (seropositivity) in seronegative individuals or ≥ 4-fold increase in antibodies in individuals seropositive for both spike proteins. RESULTS: Patients (n = 414) receiving b/ts DMARDs (283 had arthritis, 75 systemic vasculitis and 56 other autoimmune diseases) and controls (n = 61) from five Swedish regions participated. Treatments groups were: rituximab (n = 145); abatacept (n = 22); Interleukin 6 receptor inhibitors [IL6i (n = 79)]; JAnus Kinase Inhibitors [JAKi (n = 58)], Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitor [TNFi (n = 68)] and Interleukin12/23/17 inhibitors [IL12/23/17i (n = 42)]. Percentage of patients with positive antibody response after two doses was significantly lower in rituximab (33,8%) and abatacept (40,9%) (p < 0,001) but not in IL12/23/17i, TNFi or JAKi groups compared to controls (80,3%). Higher age, rituximab treatment and shorter time between last rituximab course and vaccination predicted impaired antibody response. Antibody levels collected 21-40 weeks after second dose decreased significantly (IL6i: p = 0,02; other groups: p < 0,001) compared to levels at 2-12 week but most participants remained seropositive. Proportion of patients with positive antibody response increased after third dose but was still significantly lower in rituximab (p < 0,001). CONCLUSIONS: Older individuals and patients on maintenance rituximab have an impaired response after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine which improves if the time between last rituximab course and vaccination extends and also after an additional vaccine dose. Rituximab patients should be prioritized for booster vaccine doses. TNFi, JAKi and IL12/23/17i does not diminished humoral response to primary and an additional vaccination.

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.

Original research on Behçet's syndrome: a bibliometric analysis over 20 years (2000-2019).

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of original research articles on Behçet's syndrome (BS) published over the last 20 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to systematically describe their characteristics and citation records. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for any article published on BS between 2000 and 2019. We identified all original research articles and categorised them by country of origin and type of research, i.e., clinical, translational and basic. Each article's impact was assessed using the individual citation numbers from Google Scholar search engine; we also calculated the median annual citation rates (ACRs), both per country and research type. RESULTS: Of a total of 2,381 retrieved original articles from 51 countries, the majority reported on clinical (52.6%), followed by translational (46.0%) and basic research (1.4%). Turkey had the highest number of publications (39% of articles) followed by four countries (Korea, China, Japan, Italy) where BS is also relatively prevalent. However, regarding median ACRs, France was first, followed by the United Kingdom, Germany and Collaboration. Although the number of articles has almost doubled between 2010-2019 versus 2000-2009, median ACRs across either clinical or translational research had a downwards trend. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers from countries where BS is prevalent are more productive, albeit their work is of lower impact compared to countries with generally higher research budgets. A considerable increase of original research articles on BS is observed over time but further funding may be warranted for a parallel increase in the respective scientific impact.

Evaluation of an individually tailored smoking-cessation intervention for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in an outpatient clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate an individually tailored smoking-cessation intervention delivered in rheumatology care and compare the characteristics of patients who quit smoking with those who did not. METHOD: This was an open single-group prospective intervention study over 24 months, with assessments at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Current smokers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were invited to a smoking-cessation programme including behavioural change support, with or without pharmacotherapy. Data on disease activity, medical treatment, and patient-reported outcomes were retrieved from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at month 24 who reported having quit smoking with self-reported 7 day smoking abstinence. RESULTS: In total, 99 patients participated in the study. Median age was 58 years (interquartile range 50-64); 69% were female and 88% rheumatoid factor and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide positive. At 24 months, 21% of the patients had quit smoking. At 6, 12, and 18 months, 12%, 12%, and 14% of patients, respectively, had quit smoking. For patients still smoking at 24 months, the median number of cigarettes per day was significantly reduced from 12 to 6 (p ≤ 0.001). Among patients who had quit smoking at 24 months, a smaller proportion reported anxiety at baseline compared to those still smoking (28% vs 58%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: A smoking-cessation intervention including behavioural change support with or without pharmacotherapy can be helpful for a substantial number of RA patients. Anxiety is associated with lower smoking-cessation success rates.

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.

Risk of lung cancer in rheumatoid arthritis and in relation to autoantibody positivity and smoking.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is a common malignancy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Since smoking is a risk factor for both (seropositive) RA and lung cancer, it remains unclear whether RA, in itself, increases lung cancer risk. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of patients with RA and individually matched general population reference individuals identified in Swedish registers and from the Epidemiological Investigation of RA early RA study, prospectively followed for lung cancer occurrence 1995-2018. We calculated incidence rates and performed Cox regression to estimate HRs including 95% CIs of lung cancer, taking smoking and RA serostatus into account. RESULTS: Overall, we included 44 101 patients with RA (590 incident lung cancers, 56 per 100 000), and 216 495 matched general population individuals (1691 incident lung cancers, 33 per 100 000), corresponding to a crude HR (95% CI) of 1.76 (1.60 to 1.93). In subset analyses, this increased risk remained after adjustment for smoking (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.97). Compared with general population subjects who were never smokers, patients with RA who were ever smokers had almost seven times higher risk of lung cancer. In RA, seropositivity was a significant lung cancer risk factor, even when adjusted for smoking, increasing the incidence 2-6 times. At 20 years, the risk in patients with RA was almost 3%, overall and over 4% for patients who were ever smokers and had at least one RA autoantibody. CONCLUSIONS: Seropositive RA is a risk factor for lung cancer over and above what can be explained by smoking, although residual confounding by smoking or other airway exposures cannot be formally excluded. There is a need for increased awareness and potentially for regular lung cancer screening, at least in a subset of patients with RA.

Development and external validation of prediction models for adverse health outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: A multinational real-world cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Identification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at high risk of adverse health outcomes remains a major challenge. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy. METHODS: Data from 15 claims and electronic health record databases across 9 countries were used. Models were developed and internally validated on Optum® De-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database using L1-regularized logistic regression to estimate the risk of adverse health outcomes within 3 months (leukopenia, pancytopenia, infection), 2 years (myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke), and 5 years (cancers [colorectal, breast, uterine] after treatment initiation. Candidate predictors included demographic variables and past medical history. Models were externally validated on all other databases. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. FINDINGS: Models were developed and internally validated on 21,547 RA patients and externally validated on 131,928 RA patients. Models for serious infection (AUC: internal 0.74, external ranging from 0.62 to 0.83), MI (AUC: internal 0.76, external ranging from 0.56 to 0.82), and stroke (AUC: internal 0.77, external ranging from 0.63 to 0.95), showed good discrimination and adequate calibration. Models for the other outcomes showed modest internal discrimination (AUC < 0.65) and were not externally validated. INTERPRETATION: We developed and validated prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line MTX monotherapy. Final models for serious infection, MI, and stroke demonstrated good performance across multiple databases and can be studied for clinical use. FUNDING: This activity under the European Health Data & Evidence Network (EHDEN) has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 806968. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA.

Comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced arthritis and reactive arthritis to inform therapeutic strategy.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) is a relatively new disease entity caused by ICI agents during cancer therapy. Reactive arthritis (ReA) is a well-known disease entity caused by urogenital or gastrointestinal bacterial infection or pneumonia. In this sense, ICI-IA and ReA are both defined by a reaction to a well-specified causal event. As a result, comparing these diseases may help to determine therapeutic strategies. METHODS: We compared ICI-IA and ReA with special focus on pharmacological management. Specifically regarding treatment, we conducted a literature search of studies published in the PubMed database. Inclusion criteria were studies on treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GC), or disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in ICI-IA or ReA. During systematic selection, 21 studies evaluating ICI-IA and 14 studies evaluating ReA were included. RESULTS: In ICI-IA, prospective and retrospective studies have shown effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoid (GC), sulfasalazine (SSZ), methotrexate (MTX), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and TNFi. In ReA, retrospective studies evaluated NSAIDs and GC. A randomized controlled trial reported the effect of SSZ, and a retrospective study reported the effect of MTX and SSZ in combination with tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition (TNFi). For both entities, small case reports show treatment effects of interleukin 6 receptor inhibition (IL-6Ri). DISCUSSION: This literature review identified both similarities and differences regarding the pathogenesis and clinical features of ReA and ICI-IA. Studies on treatment reported effectiveness of NSAIDs, GC, MTX, SSZ and TNFi in both diseases. Further, small case reports showed effects of IL-6Ri.

Effectiveness of baricitinib and tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs in RA: results from a cohort study using nationwide Swedish register data.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of baricitinib and tofacitinib by Swedish RA patients and to compare their effectiveness with that of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). METHODS: RA patients who initiated baricitinib (n = 1420), tofacitinib (n = 316), abatacept (n = 1050), IL-6 inhibitors (IL-6is; n = 849), rituximab (n = 1101) or TNF inhibitors (TNFis; n = 6036) between January 2017 and November 2019 were followed for a minimum of 1 year using data from several linked Swedish national registers. Proportions reaching a good EULAR 28-joint DAS (DAS28) response, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) improvement >0.2 units and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission were compared at 1 year, imputing discontinued treatments as 'non-response'. Additionally, we compared drug retention and changes in DAS28, HAQ-DI and CDAI from baseline to 3 months after treatment initiation. RESULTS: On average, baricitinib, and particularly tofacitinib, were initiated as later lines of therapy and more frequently as monotherapy compared with rituximab and TNFi. Adjusted 1 year response proportions were consistently lower on TNFi compared with baricitinib, with differences of -4.3 percentage points (95% CI -8.7, 0.1) for good EULAR response, -9.9 (-14.4 to -5.4) for HAQ-DI improvement and -6.0 (-9.8 to -2.2) for CDAI remission. Comparisons with non-TNFi bDMARDs also favoured baricitinib, but not consistently. Treatment responses for tofacitinib were only marginally lower than those for baricitinib and generally similar to those of bDMARDs, with precision limited by low power. Comparisons of drug retention and changes in disease activity from baseline to 3 months supported the 1 year findings. CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib and tofacitinib showed at least equivalent effectiveness compared with bDMARDs after exploring several different effectiveness measures.