Comparative effectiveness of baricitinib and alternative biological DMARDs in a Swiss cohort study of patients with RA.

OBJECTIVES: This observational study compares the effectiveness of baricitinib (BARI), a targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD), with alternative biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from a prospective, longitudinal cohort. METHODS: We compared patients initiating a treatment course (TC) of BARI, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA), during a period when all these DMARDs were available in Switzerland. The primary outcome was drug maintenance; secondary outcomes included discontinuation rates related specifically to ineffectiveness and adverse events. We further analysed rates of low disease activity (LDA) and remission (REM) at 12 months and drug maintenance in bDMARD-naïve and tsDMARD-naïve population. RESULTS: A total of 1053 TCs were included: 273 on BARI, 473 on TNFi and 307 on OMA. BARI was prescribed to older patients with longer disease duration and more previous treatment failures than TNFi. Compared with BARI, the adjusted drug maintenance was significantly shorter for TNFi (HR for discontinuation: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.35) but not compared with OMA (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.72). These results were similar in the b/tsDMARD-naïve population. The higher discontinuation of TNFi was mostly due to increased discontinuation for ineffectiveness (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.15), with no significant differences in drug discontinuation for adverse events (HR 1.46; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.57). The LDA and REM rates at 12 months did not differ significantly between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: BARI demonstrated a significantly higher drug maintenance compared with TNFi, mainly due to lower drug discontinuations for ineffectiveness. We found no difference in drug maintenance between BARI and OMA. Clinical outcomes did not differ between the three groups. Our results suggest that BARI is an appropriate therapeutic alternative to bDMARDs in the management of RA.

Serious infection risk of tofacitinib compared to biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in routine clinical care.

Recently, serious infections related to the use of tofacitinib (TOF) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have raised considerable interest. This study aimed to compare the risk for serious infections in patients with RA upon receiving TOF versus biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) by age at treatment initiation. We identified adult RA patients exposed to TOF or bDMARDs using data collected by the Swiss registry for inflammatory rheumatic diseases (SCQM) from 2015 to 2018. The event of interest was the first non-fatal serious infection (SI) during drug exposure. Missing or incomplete SI dates were imputed as either the lower (left) or upper (right) limit of the known occurrence interval. The ratio of SI hazards (HR) of TOF versus bDMARDs was estimated as a function of age using covariate-adjusted Cox regression applied to each type of imputed time-to-SI. A total of 1687 patients provided time at risk for a first SI during study participation and drug exposure for 2238 different treatment courses, 345 for TOF and 1893 for bDMARDs. We identified 44 (left imputation) or 43 (right imputation), respectively, first SIs (12/12 on TOF versus 32/31 on bDMARDs). Left and right imputation produced similar results. For patients aged ≥ 69 years, the treatment HR started to be increased (lower limit of 95% confidence intervals (LLCIs) > 1). By the age of 76, the difference between TOF and bDMARDs started to be clinically relevant (LLCIs > 1.25). For patients aged < 65 years, the data were insufficient to draw conclusions. Our results suggest that we should expect an increased risk for SIs in older patients treated with TOF compared to bDMARDs supporting a cautious use of TOF in these patients.

Teleconsultation in rheumatology: A literature review and opinion paper.

In this article, we review published literature on "telerheumatology", a term describing the use of telemedicine in rheumatology. This field has received considerable recent attention through the development of efficient digital technologies, resulting in a good level of satisfaction among patients and health care professionals. In 2020, the social distancing constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated more widespread adoption worldwide. Telerheumatology is particularly suited for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have achieved a sustained therapeutic target of remission or low disease activity. To facilitate remote consultations and meet expectations of rheumatologists and patients, international and national guidelines have recently been proposed and existing tools, such as Patient-Reported Outcomes questionnaires, have had to be digitally adapted. In addition, telerheumatology toolkits are proposed by the Arab League of Associations for Rheumatology (ArLAR), the Association of American Medical College (AAMC), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for all learners, from medical students to practicing clinicians, encouraging the acquisition of telehealth skills and facilitating their integration into their routine clinical practice. The main benefits reported for this mode of health care are greater access to specialty care, flexibility, reduced rates of missed appointments, as well as improved patient engagement and autonomy. Limitations include the absence of physical examination. However, to implement telerheumatology effectively and widely in daily clinical practice, some barriers still need to be addressed. These include training of health care professionals, technological restrictions and reimbursement mechanisms. Despite the advantages of telerheumatology, it is not intended to replace face-to-face visits, but rather as a way to enhance access to care, service delivery and health care support for patients.

Long-term persistence of antibodies after diphtheria/tetanus vaccination in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and healthy controls.

Many vaccines demonstrate high effectiveness for years. This prospective multicentre study was conducted in Switzerland to assess the long-term persistence of antibodies to the diphtheria/tetanus (dT)-vaccine in adult patients with rheumatic diseases (PRDs). 163 PRDs and 169 controls were included in the study. The median age of all participants was 50 years (range: 18-83 years) and 56% were female. After a median time interval of 16 years after vaccination, the median anti-vaccine antibody concentrations were lower in PRDs than in controls for tetanus (1.68 vs 2.01; p = 0.049) and diphtheria (0.05 vs 0.22; p = 0.002). Based on the currently accepted seroprotection threshold (antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/ml), PRDs had lower proportions of short-term tetanus and diphtheria protection as demonstrated by crude odds ratios (OR) of 0.30 (p = 0.017) and OR: 0.52 (p = 0.004), respectively. After adjusting for 'age' and 'time since last dT vaccination', the strength of associations became weaker; for tetanus, borderline evidence remained for a true difference between PRDs and controls (OR: 0.36 [p = 0.098]), however, not for diphtheria (OR: 0.86 [p = 0.58]). We hypothesize that in the presence of rheumatic diseases and its immunosuppressive treatment, vaccine-specific long-lived plasma cells (LLPCs) may be diminished or competitively displaced by rheumatism-specific LLPCs, a process which may decrease the persistence of vaccine-specific antibodies. Novel studies should be designed by incorporating methodologies allowing to determine the attributable fraction of immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medications and rheumatic disease itself on long-lasting vaccine-specific antibody persistence, as well as, further study the role of LLPCs.

Comparison of drug retention of TNF inhibitors, other biologics and JAK inhibitors in RA patients who discontinued JAK inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVES: JAK Inhibitors (JAKi) are recommended DMARDs for patients with moderate-to-severe RA who failed first-line therapy with methotrexate. There is a lack of data allowing an evidence-based choice of subsequent DMARD therapy for patients who had discontinued JAKi treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy vs JAKi vs other mode of action (OMA) biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in RA patients who were previously treated with a JAKi. METHODS: RA patients who discontinued JAKi treatment within the Swiss RA registry SCQM were included for this observational prospective cohort study. The primary outcome was drug retention for either TNFi, OMA bDMARD or JAKi. The hazard ratio for treatment discontinuation was calculated adjusting for potential confounders. A descriptive analysis of the reasons for discontinuation was performed. RESULTS: Four hundred treatment courses of JAKi were included, with a subsequent switch to either JAKi, TNFi or OMA bDMARD. The crude overall drug retention was higher in patients switching to another JAKi as compared with TNFi and comparable to OMA. A significant difference of JAKi vs TNFi persisted after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: In a real-world population of RA patients who discontinued treatment with a JAKi, switching to another JAKi resulted in a higher drug retention than switching to a TNFi. A switch to a second JAKi seems an effective therapeutic option.

Effect of dose adjustments on the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of an open-label, long-term extension study (ORAL Sequel).

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: We assess the impact of switching versus staying on the same tofacitinib dose on efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: ORAL Sequel was an open-label, long-term extension study of patients with RA receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID for up to 9.5 years. Tofacitinib doses could be switched during the study at investigator discretion. In this post hoc analysis, data from ORAL Sequel were stratified into four groups: 5 → 10 mg BID (Dose-up); 5 mg BID (Stay-on 5); 10 → 5 mg BID (Dose-down); and 10 mg BID (Stay-on 10). Efficacy assessments over 12 months included: change from baseline in 4-component Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28), and DAS28 minimum clinically important difference, remission, and low disease activity (LDA) rates. Safety was assessed for the study duration. RESULTS: Generally, DAS28 improvements and minimum clinically important difference rates were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in Dose-up versus Stay-on 5 up to month 12. DAS28 remission rates were significantly greater in Dose-up versus Stay-on 5 at month 12. Change from baseline in DAS28 was similar in Dose-down and Stay-on 10. No significant differences in DAS28 LDA rates were observed between groups. Safety data were similar overall across the four groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA receiving open-label tofacitinib, this analysis found that some benefited from increasing dose from 5 to 10 mg BID and did not find that reducing dose from 10 to 5 mg BID affected efficacy or that dose switching in either direction affected safety. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00413699. Registered December 20, 2006. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00413699 Key Points • This post hoc analysis of data from the long-term extension study, ORAL Sequel, assessed the impact of dose switching between tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID), at the investigator's discretion, on efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). • Dosing up from tofacitinib 5 to 10 mg BID was associated with improved efficacy up to 12 months versus staying on 5 mg BID, and dosing down from 10 to 5 mg BID was not generally associated with a significant loss of efficacy. • Safety outcomes were generally consistent across dose groups and did not change markedly after switching dose in either direction. • These findings can help to inform physicians on what may be expected in terms of efficacy and safety when adjusting tofacitinib dose according to clinical need. The recommended tofacitinib dosage for the treatment of RA in most jurisdictions is 5 mg BID.

Analysis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and higher radiographic progression: association of very high radiographic progression but not of intermediately high with worsening of patient-related outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-patients depending on their individual peak radiographic progression. METHODS: We selected for the individual peak radiographic progression (Δ Ratingen scores/time) in patients of the Swiss registry SCQM. The baseline disease characteristics were compared using standard descriptive statistics. The change of DAS 28 (disease activity sore) and HAQ-DI (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index) before and after peak progression was analysed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: Of the 4,033 patients in the analysis, 3,049 patients had a peak radiographic progression rate between 0 and ≤10 in the Ratingen score per year, 773 between 10 and ≤20, 150 between 20 and ≤30, and 61 of >30 (defining groups A-D). Rheumatoid factor was more frequent in patient groups with a higher peak radiographic progression (71.1%, 79.2%, 85.3%, 88.5%, groups A-D). Peak radiographic progression at a rate >20/year (groups C-D) was not detected after December 2012. When the rate of radiographic progression before and after peak progression was analysed, it was significantly lower. The DAS 28 was significantly higher in all patient groups before peak progression and lower thereafter (p<0.001). Average HAQ-DI scores increased after peak radiographic progression in group D (p=0.005) whereas it was stable or even decreased among the patients of the other patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that the highest radiographic progression rates are rare and get less frequent over the last years. Higher disease activity precedes radiographic peak progression. Only the highest individual peak (change of Ratingen score >30/year) radiographic progression was followed by an increase of HAQ-DI scores.

Torque Teno Virus quantification for monitoring of immunomodulation with biologic compounds in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: RA patients who fail to respond to MTX can receive biologic dMARDs (bDMARDs). The Torque Teno Virus (TTV) is a potential novel candidate for monitoring of immunosuppression. We explore TTV in these patients and its association with clinical response to bDMARDs. METHODS: The BioBio Study is a multicentre randomized open-label trial, including RA patients with insufficient response to MTX. Patients were randomized to either TNFi (infliximab, INF), anti-IL-6 (tocilizumab, TCZ), CTLA4-Ig (abatacept, ABA) or anti-CD20 (rituximab, RTX) in addition to MTX. PCR was used to quantify TTV in the peripheral blood. RESULTS: TTV was measured in 95 patients (INF, n = 23; TCZ, n = 22; ABA, n = 27; RTX; n = 23). TTV increased by a median of 4.5 × 104 copies/ml [c/ml; interquartile range (IQR) 0-7.5 × 105] after 3 months. TTV levels at month 3 were associated with the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) (P = 0.03) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response (P = 0.026) at month 6. A TTV cut-off level of 1.2 × 106 c/ml at month 3 had a positive likelihood ratio of 2.7 for prediction of an 85% reduction in SDAI at month 6. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that TTV levels increase upon TNF, CD20 and costimulation blockade and are associated with the clinical response to bDMARDs in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01638715.

Site-specific resolution of enthesitis in patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Enthesitis is a hallmark of spondyloarthritis (SpA) with a substantial impact on quality of life. Reports of treatment effectiveness across individual enthesitis sites in real-world patients with axial SpA (axSpA) are limited. We investigated the evolution of enthesitis following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) initiation in axSpA patients, both cumulatively and at specific axial and peripheral sites. METHODS: AxSpA patients in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management Registry were included if they initiated a TNFi, had an available Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, modified to include the plantar fascia (mMASES, 0-15), at start of treatment and after 6 and/or 12 months and ≥12 months follow-up. Logistic regression models were utilized to analyze explanatory variables for enthesitis resolution. RESULTS: Overall, 1668 TNFi treatment courses (TCs) were included, of which 1117 (67%) had active enthesitis at baseline. Reduction in mMASES at the 6- and 12-month timepoints was experienced in 72% and 70% of TCs, respectively. Enthesitis resolution at 6/12 months occurred in 37.9%/43.0% of all TNFi TCs and 40.7%/50.9% of first TNFi TCs. At 6 months, a significant reduction in the frequency of enthesitis was observed at all sites, except for the Achilles tendon and plantar fascia among first TNFi TCs, while at 12 months, reduction was significant at all sites in both TC groups. Enthesitis resolved in 60.3-77% across anatomical sites, while new incident enthesitis occurred in 4.0-13.5% of all TNFi TCs at 12 months. Both baseline and new-incident enthesitis occurred most frequently at the posterior superior iliac spine and the fifth lumbar spinous process. Younger age and lower mMASES at baseline were predictors of complete enthesitis resolution, while female sex and second- or later-line TNFi treatment were associated with persistence of enthesitis at 12 months. CONCLUSION: In real-world axSpA patients treated with a TNFi, enthesitis improved in the majority of patients across all anatomical sites. Significant improvement at the Achilles and plantar fascia entheses was observed only at 12 months. Complete and site-specific enthesitis resolution occurred in ≥40% and ≥60% of TCs evaluated at 12 months, with a low incidence of new site-specific enthesitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Rheumatoid Arthritis from Pathogenesis to Therapeutic Strategies.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that leads to joint destruction [...].

Effectiveness, Tolerability, and Safety of Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Data from the St. Gallen and Aarau Cohorts.

: Introduction: Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib have been shown in several randomized clinical trials. The study presented here aimed to assess the clinical tolerability and effectiveness of tofacitinib among RA patients in real life. Methods: Consecutive patients between January 2015 and April 2017 with RA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2010 criteria were included in a prospectively designed analysis of retrospective data. Patients were initiated on tofacitinib 5 mg bid. The primary objective was to analyze the safety of tofacitinib in a real-life cohort. Safety was assessed by the reasons to stop tofacitinib during follow up and changes of liver enzymes, hemoglobin, and creatinine. The secondary outcome was to analyze the frequency of and time to achieve low disease activity (LDA) and remission as defined by 28 joint count disease activity score (DAS28). Results: A total of 144 patients were treated with tofacitinib. A total of 84.9% of patients were pre-exposed to at least one biological agent. The average DAS28 at the initiation of tofacitinib was 4.43. A total of 50.0% of patients were positive for rheumatoid factor and 49.0% for ACPA. The mean follow up was 1.22 years (range 10d-3.7a) after initiation of tofacitinib treatment. A total of 94 (64.4%) patients remained on tofacitinib during follow-up. The average time to stop tofacitinib was 190.0 days. Reasons to stop tofacitinib were: insufficient response (n = 23), gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 18), infection (n = 5), myalgia (n = 2), remission (n = 2), headache (n = 2), cough, blue finger syndrome, intolerance, heartburn, psoriasis, and increased liver enzymes (all n = 1). Increased alanine amino transferase (ALAT) or aspartate amino transferase (ASAT) > 2× upper limit of normal (ULN) were detected in 3.3% and 4.4% of patients, respectively. Hemoglobin decrease of >10% was detected in 15.1% of the patients and decreased lymphocytes <500/µL in 3.4%. An increase of creatinine >20% was detected in 9.4% of patients. A total of 62.9% and 50.0% of the patients achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission after a median of 319 and 645 days, respectively. These rates were significantly higher in patients naïve to biologic agents as compared to patients pre-exposed to biologics (LDA: naïve 100% 92 d, pre-exposed 57.0% 434 d, p ≤ 0.001; remission: naïve 86.7% 132 d, pre-exposed 44.1%, 692 d, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Tofacitinib is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with RA. Tofacitinib may induce high rates of LDA and remission in patients with active disease, even after the use of one or more biologics, though the rate appeared higher in patients naïve to biologics. Tofacitinib may be a valuable option in a treat-to-target approach. Our data demonstrate that Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are safe and efficacious in real life patients.

Superiority of a Treat-to-Target Strategy over Conventional Treatment with Fixed csDMARD and Corticosteroids: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial in RA Patients with an Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic DMARDs, and New Therapy with Certolizumab Pegol.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) includes the use of conventional (cs), biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and oral, intramuscularly, intravenous, or intraarticular (IA) glucocorticoids (GCs). In this paper, we analysed whether a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy optimizing csDMARD, oral, and IA-GC treatment as an adjunct new therapy to a new certolizumab pegol (CZP) therapy improves the effectivity in RA patients. METHODS: 43 patients with active RA (≥6 tender, ≥6 swollen joints, ESR ≥ 20 mm/h or CRP ≥ 7mg/L) despite csDMARD treatment for ≥ 3 months and naïve to bDMARDs were randomized to CZP (200 mg/2 weeks after loading with 400 mg at weeks 0⁻2⁻4) plus a treat-to-target strategy (T2T, n = 21), or to CZP added to the established csDMARD therapy (fixed regimen, n = 22). The T2T strategy consisted of changing the baseline csDMARD therapy (1) SC-methotrexate (dose: 15 ≥ 20 ≥ 25 mg/week, depending on the initial dose) ≥ leflunomide (20 mg/d) ≥ sulphasalazine (2 × 1000 mg/d) plus (2) oral GCs (prednisolone 20⁻15⁻12.5⁻10⁻7.5⁻5⁻2.5⁻0 mg/d tapered every five days) and (3) injections of ≤5 affected joints with triamcinolone. DMARD modification and an addition of oral GCs were initiated, depending on the achievement of low disease activity (DAS 28 < 3.2). The primary objective was defined as the ACR 50 response at week 24. RESULTS: ACR 50 was achieved in 76.2% of the T2T, as compared to 36.4% of the fixed regimen patients (p = 0.020). ACR 20 and 70 responses were achieved in 90.5% and 71.4% of the T2T patients and 59.1% and 27.3% of the fixed regimen patients, respectively (p = 0.045 and p = 0.010, respectively). The adverse event rate was similar for both groups (T2T n = 51; fixed regimen n = 55). CONCLUSION: Treat-to-target management with the optimization of csDMARDs, oral, and IA-GCs of RA patients in parallel to a newly established CZP treatment was safe and efficacious in comparison to a fixed regimen of csDMARDs background therapy.

Clinical outcomes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with belimumab in clinical practice settings: a retrospective analysis of results from the OBSErve study in Switzerland.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: To describe patterns of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) care and the clinical effectiveness of belimumab plus standard of care therapy in a real-world clinical setting in Switzerland. METHODS: This multicentre, observational, retrospective cohort study included adults with SLE who initiated belimumab as part of their usual care at least six months before data analysis. The primary outcome was the overall clinical response, assessed by a physician on a Physician’s Global Assessment-like scale, to six months’ treatment with belimumab. Secondary outcomes included improvement in disease activity, SLE manifestations and changes in corticosteroid use. RESULTS: 53 patients (81% female) from three hospitals were included. At index (belimumab initiation), 23 patients (43%) had mild, 23 (43%) had moderate, and 7 (13%) had severe SLE. Overall improvement in disease activity in patients receiving belimumab was: ≥80% in 6 patients (11%), ≥50% in 12 (23%), ≥20% in 31 (58%), <20% in 13 (25%), and no improvement in 9 (17%). Mean Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-SLE Disease Activity Index score decreased from 8.0 at index to 3.6 at six months post index in the 27 patients assessed. In addition, a ≥50% improvement in arthritis, fatigue, rash, low complement (C3, C4 or total haemolytic complement activity), and anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid antibody levels was experienced six months post index by 10 (38%), 3 (16%), 6 (38%), 2 (12%) and 4 (16%) patients who presented the manifestations at index respectively. At index, 41 patients (77%) received oral corticosteroids at a mean dose of 11.6 mg/day, which decreased to 5.9 mg/day at six months post index. Of the 31 patients receiving a high dose of corticosteroids (≥7.5 mg/day) at index, 18 required <7.5 mg/day and a further two discontinued corticosteroids at six months post index. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world insight into belimumab use in clinical practice in Switzerland. In line with findings from other countries, Swiss patients with SLE who received belimumab demonstrated clinical and serological improvements in SLE and a reduction in corticosteroid use after six months of treatment.

The Value of an Automated Ultrasound System in the Detection of Synovitis.

BACKGROUND: The detection of joint swelling caused by synovitis is important for the diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis. Ultrasound (US) and MRI have proven to be more sensitive and reliable than physical examination, but they are time-consuming and expensive. The automated breast volume scanner was developed to acquire serial B-mode pictures of the female breast and these can be analyzed in all three dimensions. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the value of automated B-mode ultrasound employing the ABVS system in detecting synovitis of the finger joints compared to manual ultrasound (mUS) and physical examination, using MRI as the gold standard. METHODS: 19 consecutive patients suffering from active rheumatoid (n=15) or psoriatic (n=4) arthritis were included. Automated and mUS were conducted with a linear array (ACUSON S2000™, 11 MHz). Multiplanar reconstruction enabled examination of the images for the presence of synovitis. RESULTS: 90% of the hand joints were assessable by automated ultrasound. Automated US detected 12.0, mUS 14.2, MRI 13.4, and clinical examination 4.1 positive joints - i. e. joints with synovitis - on average per patient. The inter-observer reliability of both assessors for automated and mUS, MRI, and physical examination, was 66.9%, 72.7%, 95.1%, and 88.9%, respectively. 84.3% of the joints classified as positive on MRI were confirmed by automated ultrasound, 85.5% on mUS, and 36.0 on physical examination. This translated into a sensitivity of 83.5%, 85.5%, and 36.0% for the three methods, respectively. Conclusion: Automated ultrasound is a promising ultrasound method for assessing small joints in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Clinical and radiographic course of early undifferentiated arthritis under treatment is not dependent on the number of joints with erosions at diagnosis: results from the Swiss prospective observational cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse whether early arthritis patients who do not fulfil the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) 2010 classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a different course of the disease dependent on whether they can or cannot be classified as RA because of radiographic disease (EULAR task force) at diagnosis. METHODS: For this observational study within the Swiss RA cohort SCQM, we included patients with early undifferentiated arthritis (disease duration ≤1 year), who had not received any previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria negative patients were separated into two groups (radiographic vs non-radiographic arthritis) depending on whether or not they had radiographic changes defined as erosive disease by a EULAR task force (≥3 joints with erosions). The primary outcome measure was the radiographic progression detected employing the Ratingen erosion score. Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and DAS-28 were used as secondary outcome measures. The average observation period was 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 592 patients were analysed. 240 were not classifiable as RA by application of the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria at baseline. In 57 patients, radiographs at the first visit were not available. 133 patients had radiographic arthritis and 50 non-radiographic arthritis. Treatment was initiated in all patients with DMARDs, mostly methotrexate. No differences in DAS-28 and HAQ scores were found during follow-up. The average erosion scores were higher among patients with initially radiographic arthritis throughout the study. The progression of erosion scores over time, however, was higher in patients with initially non-radiographic arthritis with less subsequent radiological progression (3.3 erosions/year vs 0.4, respectively, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and radiographic course of early undifferentiated arthritis under treatment was not dependent on the presence of erosions in three or more joints (ie, the definition of radiographic disease by the EULAR task force) at diagnosis in our cohort.

Disease activity dynamics in rheumatoid arthritis: patients' self-assessment of disease activity via WebApp.

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate patient self-assessment of RA disease activity in terms of Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) scores via a Web-based smartphone application (WebApp). Methods: In this prospective, multicentre study, adult RA patients were examined by a rheumatologist at baseline and after 3 months. Patients were asked to complete WebApp questionnaires weekly. The time course of patient-assessed RAPID3/4 scores and their correlations with rheumatologist-assessed DAS28, as well as Clinical and Simplified Disease Activity Indices (CDAI/SDAI), were evaluated. Results: Eighty patients were included in the analysis (median RA duration, 4.5 years; age, 57 years; 59% female). At baseline, there was a moderate to strong correlation between RAPID3 and DAS28 (r = 0.63), CDAI (r = 0.65) and SDAI (r = 0.61) scores. Similar or stronger correlations were seen at the 3-month follow-up visit (DAS28 r = 0.66, CDAI r = 0.71 and SDAI r = 0.61). Similar correlations were seen between RAPID4 and rheumatologist assessments. Correlations were not influenced by demographics or RA treatment. In the 3-month period, the RAPID3 score changed into a higher severity category than the category at baseline at least once in 47% of patients. When DAS28 scores were predicted from the RAPID3, 11% of patients had an increase of > 1 DAS28 unit during the 3-month observation period. Conclusion: Web-based patient assessments were strongly correlated with rheumatologist assessments of RA activity and showed considerable variation during follow-up. This provides a rationale for further exploration of their use as cost-effective tools to monitor RA activity between outpatient visits and to optimize tight control strategies.

Median time to low disease activity is shorter in tocilizumab combination therapy with csDMARDs as compared to tocilizumab monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to csDMARDs and/or TNF inhibitors: sub-analysis of the Swiss and Austrian patients from the ACT-SURE study.

To analyse efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and/or tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors of the Swiss and Austrian patients from the ACT-SURE study. This is a sub-analysis of RA patients from Switzerland and Austria, who participated in the international phase 3b, open-label, ACT-SURE study. Patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs or TNF antagonists receiving 8 mg/kg of IV tocilizumab every 4 weeks during a 24-week time period were included into the study. Therapy with one or more csDMARDs could be continued as combination therapy with tocilizumab (Combo) or stopped, resulting in tocilizumab monotherapy (Mono), at the treating physician's discretion. These two patient groups were analysed in separate and compared. Overall, 107 (22 on Mono vs. 85 on Combo) patients were treated with tocilizumab. The percentage of patients with at least one adverse event was significantly lower in the tocilizumab combination (58.8%) as compared to the monotherapy group (81.8%, p = 0.0458). No differences in ACR20/50/70/90 response rates were observed between both treatment groups at week 24 (Mono 63.6, 40.9, 22.7, and 18.2% vs. Combo 61.2, 43.5, 25.9, and 10.6%). The median time to low disease activity (LDA) was significantly shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab combination therapy (Mono 9.1, Combo 7.9 weeks, log rank p = 0.038). In this post hoc regional sub-analysis of the ACT-SURE study, no differences for disease activity were found comparing the two patient groups at week 24. However, median time to LDA was statistically shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab combination therapy as compared to tocilizumab monotherapy. Consequently, adding tocilizumab to csDMARD therapy rather than changing to tocilizumab monotherapy may be, in our opinion, the safest strategy to reach maximum effect in RA patients with active disease despite treatment with csDMARD. csDMARDs can be withdrawn either immediately due to adverse events or after at least low disease activity has been reached.

Treatment with Biologicals in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview.

Management and therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been revolutionized by the development and approval of the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α at the end of the last century. Today, numerous efficacious agents with different modes of action are available and achievement of clinical remission or, at least, low disease activity is the target of therapy. Early therapeutic interventions aiming at a defined goal of therapy (treat to target) are supposed to halt inflammation, improving symptoms and signs, and preserving structural integrity of the joints in RA. Up to now, bDMARDs approved for therapy in RA include agents with five different modes of action: TNF inhibition, T cell co-stimulation blockade, IL-6 receptor inhibition, B cell depletion, and interleukin 1 inhibition. Furthermore, targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) inhibiting Janus kinase (JAK) and biosimilars also are approved for RA. The present review focuses on bDMARDs and tsDMARDS regarding similarities and possible drug-specific advantages in the treatment of RA. Furthermore, compounds not yet approved in RA and biosimilars are discussed. Following the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations, specific treatment of the disease will be discussed with respect to safety and efficacy. In particular, we discuss the question of favoring specific bDMARDs or tsDMARDs in the two settings of insufficient response to methotrexate and to the first bDMARD, respectively.