Obesity is a risk factor for poor response to treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis: a NORD-STAR study.

OBJECTIVE: This report from the NORD-STAR (Nordic Rheumatic Diseases Strategy Trials and Registries) trial aimed to determine if obesity is associated with response to conventional and biological antirheumatic treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This report included 793 participants with untreated early RA from the randomised, longitudinal NORD-STAR trial, all of whom had their body mass index (BMI) assessed at baseline. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥30 kg/m2. All participants were randomised 1:1:1:1 to one of four treatment arms: active conventional treatment, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept and tocilizumab. Clinical and laboratory measurements were performed at baseline and at 8, 12, 24 and 48-week follow-up. The primary endpoint for this report was response to treatment based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission and Disease Activity Score with 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2.6 stratified by BMI. RESULTS: Out of 793 people included in the present report, 161 (20%) had obesity at baseline. During follow-up, participants with baseline obesity had higher disease activity compared with those with lower BMI, despite having similar disease activity at baseline. In survival analyses, obesity was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving response to treatment during follow-up for up to 48 weeks (CDAI remission, HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; SDAI, HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97; DAS28-CRP <2.6, HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95). The effect of obesity on response to treatment was not influenced by the treatment arms. CONCLUSION: In people with untreated early RA followed up for up to 48 weeks, obesity was associated with a lower likelihood of good treatment response, irrespective of the type of randomised treatment received. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01491815.

Anti-KIF20B autoantibodies are associated with cranial neuropathy in systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Cranial neuropathies (CN) are a rare neuropsychiatric SLE (NPSLE) manifestation. Previous studies reported that antibodies to the kinesin family member 20B (KIF20B) (anti-KIF20B) protein were associated with idiopathic ataxia and CN. We assessed anti-KIF20B as a potential biomarker for NPSLE in an international SLE inception cohort. METHODS: Individuals fulfilling the revised 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria were enrolled from 31 centres from 1999 to 2011 and followed annually in the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort. Anti-KIF20B testing was performed on baseline (within 15 months of diagnosis or first annual visit) samples using an addressable laser bead immunoassay. Logistic regression (penalised maximum likelihood and adjusting for confounding variables) examined the association between anti-KIF20B and NPSLE manifestations (1999 ACR case definitions), including CN, occurring over the first 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 1827 enrolled cohort members, baseline serum and 5 years of follow-up data were available on 795 patients who were included in this study: 29.8% were anti-KIF20B-positive, 88.7% female, and 52.1% White. The frequency of anti-KIF20B positivity differed only for those with CN (n=10) versus without CN (n=785) (70.0% vs 29.3%; OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.4, 18.5). Compared with patients without CN, patients with CN were more likely to fulfil the ACR haematological (90.0% vs 66.1%; difference 23.9%, 95% CI 5.0%, 42.8%) and ANA (100% vs 95.7%; difference 4.3%, 95% CI 2.9%, 5.8%) criteria. In the multivariate analysis adjusting for age at baseline, female, White race and ethnicity, and ACR haematological and ANA criteria, anti-KIF20B positivity remained associated with CN (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.4, 19.1). CONCLUSION: Anti-KIF20B is a potential biomarker for SLE-related CN. Further studies are needed to examine how autoantibodies against KIF20B, which is variably expressed in a variety of neurological cells, contribute to disease pathogenesis.

Urinary prostanoids are elevated by anti-TNF and anti-IL6 receptor disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs but are not predictive of response to treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are widely used for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there are no established biomarkers to predict a patient's response to these therapies. Prostanoids, encompassing prostaglandins, prostacyclins, and thromboxanes, are potent lipid mediators implicated in RA progression. Nevertheless, the influence of DMARDs on prostanoid biosynthesis in RA patients remains poorly understood. This study aims to assess the impact of various DMARDs on urinary prostanoids levels and to explore whether urinary prostanoid profiles correlate with disease activity or response to therapy. METHODS: This study included 152 Swedish female patients with early RA, all rheumatoid factor (RF) positive, enrolled in the NORD-STAR trial (registration number: NCT01491815). Participants were randomized into four therapeutic regimes: methotrexate (MTX) combined with (i) prednisolone (arm ACT), (ii) TNF-α blocker certolizumab pegol (arm CZP), (iii) CTLA-4Ig abatacept (arm ABA), or (iv) IL-6R blocker tocilizumab (arm TCZ). Urine samples, collected before start of treatment and at 24 weeks post-treatment, were analyzed for tetranor-prostaglandin E metabolite (tPGEM), tetranor-prostaglandin D metabolite (tPGDM), 2,3-dinor thromboxane B2 (TXBM), 2,3-dinor-6-keto prostaglandin F1a (PGIM), leukotriene E4 (LTE4) and 12-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid (12-HETE) using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to analyze the change in urinary eicosanoids and their correlations to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Patients receiving MTX combined with CZP or TCZ exhibited significant elevations in urinary tPGEM and TXBM levels after 24 weeks of treatment. Other eicosanoids did not show significant alterations in response to any treatment. Baseline urinary eicosanoid levels did not correlate with baseline clinical disease activity index (CDAI) levels, nor with changes in CDAI from baseline to week 24. Their levels were also similar between patients who achieved CDAI remission and those with active disease at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with anti-TNF or anti-IL6R agents in early RA patients leads to an increased systemic production of proinflammatory and prothrombotic prostanoids. However, urinary eicosanoid levels do not appear to be predictive of the response to DMARDs therapy.

Methotrexate Safety and Efficacy in Combination Therapies in Patients With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated methotrexate safety and the influence of dose on efficacy outcomes in combination with three different biologic treatments and with active conventional treatment (ACT) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This post hoc analysis included 812 treatment-naïve patients with early RA who were randomized (1:1:1:1) in the NORD-STAR trial to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Methotrexate safety, doses, and dose effects on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission were assessed after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Compared with ACT, the prevalence of methotrexate-associated side effects was higher when methotrexate was combined with tocilizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.84) but not with certolizumab-pegol (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.23) or with abatacept (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.16). With ACT as the reference, the methotrexate dose was significantly lower when used in combination with tocilizumab (ß -4.65, 95% CI -5.83 to -3.46; P < 0.001) or abatacept (ß -1.15, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.03; P = 0.04), and it was numerically lower in combination with certolizumab-pegol (ß -1.07, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.07; P = 0.07). Methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the treatment combinations. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate was generally well tolerated in combination therapies, but adverse events were a limiting factor in receiving the target dose of 25 mg/wk, and these were more frequent in combination with tocilizumab versus ACT. On the other hand, methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the four treatment combinations at 24 weeks.

EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus: 2023 update.

OBJECTIVES: To update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) based on emerging new evidence. METHODS: An international Task Force formed the questions for the systematic literature reviews (January 2018-December 2022), followed by formulation and finalisation of the statements after a series of meetings. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned, and participants finally provided their level of agreement with each item. RESULTS: The Task Force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations, concerning the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), glucocorticoids (GC), immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) (including methotrexate, mycophenolate, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide (CYC)), calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, voclosporin) and biologics (belimumab, anifrolumab, rituximab). Advice is also provided on treatment strategies and targets of therapy, assessment of response, combination and sequential therapies, and tapering of therapy. HCQ is recommended for all patients with lupus at a target dose 5 mg/kg real body weight/day, considering the individual's risk for flares and retinal toxicity. GC are used as 'bridging therapy' during periods of disease activity; for maintenance treatment, they should be minimised to equal or less than 5 mg/day (prednisone equivalent) and, when possible, withdrawn. Prompt initiation of ISDs (methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate) and/or biological agents (anifrolumab, belimumab) should be considered to control the disease and facilitate GC tapering/discontinuation. CYC and rituximab should be considered in organ-threatening and refractory disease, respectively. For active lupus nephritis, GC, mycophenolate or low-dose intravenous CYC are recommended as anchor drugs, and add-on therapy with belimumab or CNIs (voclosporin or tacrolimus) should be considered. Updated specific recommendations are also provided for cutaneous, neuropsychiatric and haematological disease, SLE-associated antiphospholipid syndrome, kidney protection, as well as preventative measures for infections, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSION: The updated recommendations provide consensus guidance on the management of SLE, combining evidence and expert opinion.

Telitacicept in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of telitacicept, a novel fusion protein that neutralises signals of B lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferation-inducing ligand, in active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Adult patients with active SLE (n=249) were recruited from 29 hospitals in China and randomised 1:1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous telitacicept at 80 mg (n=62), 160 mg (n=63), 240 mg (n=62) or placebo (n=62) once weekly in addition to standard therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI-4) response at week 48. Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward method. RESULTS: At week 48, the proportion of patients achieving an SRI-4 response was 75.8% in the 240 mg telitacicept group, 68.3% in the 160 mg group, 71.0% in the 80 mg group and 33.9% in the placebo group (all p<0.001). Significant treatment responses were observed in secondary endpoints, including a ≥4-point reduction on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index, a lack of Physician's Global Assessment score worsening and a glucocorticoid dose reduction in the 240 mg group. Telitacicept was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar between the telitacicept and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: This phase 2b clinical trial met the primary endpoint. All telitacicept groups showed a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving an SRI-4 response than the placebo group at week 48, and all doses were well tolerated. These results support further investigations of telitacicept in clinical trials involving more diverse populations and larger sample sizes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02885610).

Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting, 2023.

The Advances in Targeted Therapies meets annually, convening experts in the field of rheumatology to both provide scientific updates and identify existing scientific gaps within the field. To review the major unmet scientific needs in rheumatology. The 23rd annual Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting convened with more than 100 international basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties relating to all aspects of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We held breakout sessions in five rheumatological disease-specific groups including: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpa), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and vasculitis, and osteoarthritis (OA). In each group, experts were asked to identify and prioritise current unmet needs in clinical and translational research. An overarching theme across all disease states is the continued need for clinical trial design innovation with regard to therapeutics, endpoint and disease endotypes. Within RA, unmet needs comprise molecular classification of disease pathogenesis and activity, pre-/early RA strategies, more refined pain profiling and innovative trials designs to deliver on precision medicine. Continued scientific questions within PsA include evaluating the genetic, immunophenotypic, clinical signatures that predict development of PsA in patients with psoriasis, and the evaluation of combination therapies for difficult-to-treat disease. For axSpA, there continues to be the need to understand the role of interleukin-23 (IL-23) in pathogenesis and the genetic relationship of the IL-23-receptor polymorphism with other related systemic inflammatory diseases (eg, inflammatory bowel disease). A major unmet need in the OA field remains the need to develop the ability to reliably phenotype and stratify patients for inclusion in clinical trials. SLE experts identified a number of unmet needs within clinical trial design including the need for allowing endpoints that reflect pharmacodynamic/functional outcomes (eg, inhibition of type I interferon pathway activation; changes in urine biomarkers). Lastly, within SSc and vasculitis, there is a lack of biomarkers that predict response or disease progression, and that allow patients to be stratified for therapies. There remains a strong need to innovate clinical trial design, to identify systemic and tissue-level biomarkers that predict progression or response to therapy, endotype disease, and to continue developing therapies and therapeutic strategies for those with treatment-refractory disease. This document, based on expert consensus, should provide a roadmap for prioritising scientific endeavour in the field of rheumatology.

Prevalence of coeliac disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The reported prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) varies in previous studies. We aimed to examine the prevalence of CD in patients with RA and JIA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science Core Collection between 1 January 1990 and 31 October 2022. In our primary analysis, the prevalence of biopsy-confirmed CD in RA and JIA patients was investigated. In secondary analyses, the prevalence of serological markers for CD was examined. Pooled weighted prevalences of CD and serological markers with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated and quality of included studies was assessed. Meta-regression analysis was performed on publication year, sample size, CD prevalence in the general population, proportion of females, and quality assessment score. RESULTS: In this systematic review, 14 publications were deemed relevant for RA and 22 for JIA, with nine and 18 included in the primary analyses of CD prevalence, respectively. Among a total of 754 RA patients and 2077 patients with JIA, the weighted pooled prevalence estimates of biopsy-confirmed CD were 0.4% (95%CI=0.0-1.2) and 1.4% (95%CI=0.7-2.2), respectively. The pooled prevalence estimates of positive CD serology were 0.9% (95%CI=0.3-1.9) in RA and 5.4% (95%CI=2.5-9.2) in JIA. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found a pooled prevalence of biopsy-confirmed CD in patients with RA and JIA comparable to that in the general population. Routine screening for CD is not warranted in RA but could be considered in JIA patients with additional risk factors for CD.

Targeting DORIS Remission and LLDAS in SLE: A Review.

Remission is the established therapeutic goal for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and is currently defined by the widely adopted Definition Of Remission In SLE (DORIS) criteria. Attainment of remission is rare in the clinical setting, thus an alternative, pragmatic treatment target of low disease activity, as defined by the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), provides a less stringent and more attainable treatment goal for a wider proportion of patients compared with DORIS remission. Randomized controlled trials and real-world analyses have confirmed the positive clinical benefits of achieving either DORIS remission or LLDAS. The treat-to-target (T2T) approach utilizes practical clinical targets to proactively tailor individual treatment regimens. Studies in other chronic inflammatory diseases using the T2T approach demonstrated significantly improved clinical outcomes and quality-of-life measures compared with established standard of care. However, such trials have not yet been performed in patients with SLE. Here we review the evolution of DORIS remission and LLDAS definitions and the evidence supporting the positive clinical outcomes following DORIS remission or LLDAS attainment, before discussing considerations for implementation of these outcome measures as potential T2T objectives. Adoption of DORIS remission and LLDAS treatment goals may result in favorable patient outcomes compared with established standard of care for patients with SLE.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex disease that can affect many organs. It can lead to life-threatening complications and poor quality of life. As SLE is very different in each person, it can be challenging to measure disease activity. Doctors are encouraged to set clinical targets to tailor treatment for each patient. Clinical targets include scoring systems that measure disease improvement. Remission is an established clinical target. When a patient is in remission, disease activity is controlled, and the patient does not experience any symptoms. As remission is difficult to achieve, experts developed a more realistic yet still favorable state. This is the lupus low disease activity state, when lupus symptoms are minimal on stable therapy. Doctors use remission and low disease activity in clinical trials to compare existing SLE drugs with new treatments, including biologic drugs. Biologics target key parts of the immune system to help suppress SLE. In this review, we looked at recent clinical trials and found that biologic drugs can help patients achieve remission or low disease activity. Patients who achieved these clinical targets had slower disease progression and improved quality of life. Clinical trials in SLE should continue to use remission and low disease activity targets to help compare treatments. Doctors are encouraged to use them in their routine clinics as treatment targets to measure SLE disease control. Low disease activity state may be particularly helpful as an initial target for patients who are not yet in remission.

Web-based eHealth Clinical Decision Support System as a tool for the treat-to-target management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: development and initial usability evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Treat-to-target (T2T) is a therapeutic strategy currently being studied for its application in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Patients and rheumatologists have little support in making the best treatment decision in the context of a T2T strategy, thus, the use of information technology for systematically processing data and supporting information and knowledge may improve routine decision-making practices, helping to deliver value-based care. OBJECTIVE: To design and develop an online Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) tool "SLE-T2T", and test its usability for the implementation of a T2T strategy in the management of patients with SLE. METHODS: A prototype of a CDSS was conceived as a web-based application with the task of generating appropriate treatment advice based on entered patients' data. Once developed, a System Usability Score (SUS) questionnaire was implemented to test whether the eHealth tool was user-friendly, comprehensible, easy-to-deliver and workflow-oriented. Data from the participants' comments were synthesised, and the elements in need for improvement were identified. RESULTS: The beta version web-based system was developed based on the interim usability and acceptance evaluation. 7 participants completed the SUS survey. The median SUS score of SLE-T2T was 79 (scale 0 to 100), categorising the application as 'good' and indicating the need for minor improvements to the design. CONCLUSIONS: SLE-T2T is the first eHealth tool to be designed for the management of SLE patients in a T2T context. The SUS score and unstructured feedback showed high acceptance of this digital instrument for its future use in a clinical trial.

Meeting report: the ALPHA project: a stakeholder meeting on lupus clinical trial outcome measures and the patient perspective.

Drug development in lupus has improved over the past 10 years but still lags behind that of other rheumatic disease areas. Assessment of prospective lupus therapies in clinical trials has proved challenging for reasons that are multifactorial including the heterogeneity of the disease, study design limitations and a lack of validated biomarkers which greatly impacts regulatory decision-making. Moreover, most composite outcome measures currently used in trials do not include patient-reported outcomes. Given these factors, the Addressing Lupus Pillars for Health Advancement Global Advisory Committee members who serve on the drug development team identified an opportunity to convene a meeting to facilitate information sharing on completed and existing outcome measure development efforts. This meeting report highlights information presented during the meeting as well as a discussion on how the lupus community may work together with regulatory agencies to simplify and standardise outcome measures to accelerate development of lupus therapeutics.

Post-COVID condition in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands.

Background: Studies on long-term consequences of COVID-19, commonly referred to as post-COVID condition, in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are scarce and inconclusive. Furthermore, classifying patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases as having post-COVID condition is complicated because of overlapping symptoms. Therefore, we investigated the risk of post-COVID condition and time until recovery, and compared the prevalence of symptoms seen in post-COVID condition, between patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and healthy controls, with and without a history of COVID-19. Methods: In this substudy we used data from an ongoing prospective cohort study in the Netherlands. All adult patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, were invited to participate in the study between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. All patients were asked, but not obliged, to recruit their own control participant of the same sex, of comparable age (< 5 years), and without an inflammatory rheumatic disease. Demographic and clinical data, including data on the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infections, were collected via online questionnaires. On March 10, 2022, all study participants received a questionnaire on the occurrence, onset, severity, and duration of persistent symptoms during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, independent of their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, we prospectively monitored a subset of participants who had a PCR or antigen confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the 2-month period surrounding the questionnaire in order to assess COVID-19 sequelae. In line with WHO guidelines, post-COVID condition was defined as persistent symptoms that lasted at least 8 weeks, started after the onset and within 3 months of a PCR or antigen-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and could not be explained by an alternative diagnosis. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, logistic regression analyses, logistic-based causal mediation analyses, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for time until recovery from post-COVID condition. In exploratory analyses, E-values were calculated to investigate unmeasured confounding. Findings: A total of 1974 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease (1268 [64%] women and 706 [36%] men; mean age 59 years [SD 13]) and 733 healthy controls (495 [68%] women and 238 [32%] men; mean age 59 years [12]) participated. 468 (24%) of 1974 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease and 218 (30%) of 733 healthy controls had a recent SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection. Of those, 365 (78%) of 468 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease and 172 (79%) of 218 healthy controls completed the prospective follow-up COVID-19 sequelae questionnaires. More patients than controls fulfilled post-COVID condition criteria: 77 (21%) of 365 versus 23 (13%) of 172 (odds ratio [OR] 1·73 [95% CI 1·04-2·87]; p=0·033). The OR was attenuated after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted OR 1·53 [95% CI 0·90-2·59]; p=0·12). Among those without a history of COVID-19, patients with inflammatory diseases were more likely to report persistent symptoms consistent with post-COVID condition than were healthy controls (OR 2·52 [95% CI 1·92-3·32]; p<0·0001). This OR exceeded the calculated E-values of 1·74 and 1·96. Recovery time from post-COVID condition was similar for patients and controls (p=0·17). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most frequently reported symptoms in both patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease and healthy controls with post-COVID condition. Interpretation: Post-COVID condition after SARS-CoV-2 omicron infections was higher in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease than in healthy controls based on WHO classification guidelines. However, because more patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease than healthy controls without a history of COVID-19 reported symptoms that are commonly used to define a post-COVID condition during the first 2 years of the pandemic, it is likely that the observed difference in post-COVID condition between patients and controls might in part be explained by clinical manifestations in the context of underlying rheumatic diseases. This highlights the limitations of applying current criteria for post-COVID condition in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease, and suggests it might be appropriate for physicians to keep a nuanced attitude when communicating the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Funding: ZonMw (the Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development) and Reade foundation.

Certolizumab pegol, abatacept, tocilizumab or active conventional treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis: 48-week clinical and radiographic results of the investigator-initiated randomised controlled NORD-STAR trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal first-line treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is debated. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of active conventional therapy with each of three biological treatments with different modes of action. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, randomised, blinded-assessor study. Patients with treatment-naïve early RA with moderate-severe disease activity were randomised 1:1:1:1 to methotrexate combined with (1) active conventional therapy: oral prednisolone (tapered quickly, discontinued at week 36) or sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints; (2) certolizumab pegol; (3) abatacept or (4) tocilizumab. Coprimary endpoints were week 48 Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission (CDAI ≤2.8) and change in radiographic van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score, estimated using logistic regression and analysis of covariance, adjusted for sex, anticitrullinated protein antibody status and country. Bonferroni's and Dunnet's procedures adjusted for multiple testing (significance level: 0.025). RESULTS: Eight hundred and twelve patients were randomised. Adjusted CDAI remission rates at week 48 were: 59.3% (abatacept), 52.3% (certolizumab), 51.9% (tocilizumab) and 39.2% (active conventional therapy). Compared with active conventional therapy, CDAI remission rates were significantly higher for abatacept (adjusted difference +20.1%, p<0.001) and certolizumab (+13.1%, p=0.021), but not for tocilizumab (+12.7%, p=0.030). Key secondary clinical outcomes were consistently better in biological groups. Radiographic progression was low, without group differences.The proportions of patients with serious adverse events were abatacept, 8.3%; certolizumab, 12.4%; tocilizumab, 9.2%; and active conventional therapy, 10.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with active conventional therapy, clinical remission rates were superior for abatacept and certolizumab pegol, but not for tocilizumab. Radiographic progression was low and similar between treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01491815.

Association Between Severe Nonadherence to Hydroxychloroquine and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Flares, Damage, and Mortality in 660 Patients From the SLICC Inception Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to assess the associations of severe nonadherence to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), objectively assessed by HCQ serum levels, and risks of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares, damage, and mortality rates over five years of follow-up. METHODS: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort is an international multicenter initiative (33 centers throughout 11 countries). The serum of patients prescribed HCQ for at least three months at enrollment were analyzed. Severe nonadherence was defined by a serum HCQ level <106 ng/mL or <53 ng/mL for HCQ doses of 400 or 200 mg/day, respectively. Associations with the risk of a flare (defined as a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 increase ≥4 points, initiation of prednisone or immunosuppressive drugs, or new renal involvement) were studied with logistic regression, and associations with damage (first SLICC/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index [SDI] increase ≥1 point) and mortality with separate Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of the 1,849 cohort participants, 660 patients (88% women) were included. Median (interquartile range) serum HCQ was 388 ng/mL (244-566); 48 patients (7.3%) had severe HCQ nonadherence. No covariates were clearly associated with severe nonadherence, which was, however, independently associated with both flare (odds ratio 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.80-6.42) and an increase in the SDI within each of the first three years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.92 at three years; 95% CI 1.05-3.50). Eleven patients died within five years, including 3 with severe nonadherence (crude HR 5.41; 95% CI 1.43-20.39). CONCLUSION: Severe nonadherence was independently associated with the risks of an SLE flare in the following year, early damage, and five-year mortality.

Machine learning identifies clusters of longitudinal autoantibody profiles predictive of systemic lupus erythematosus disease outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: A novel longitudinal clustering technique was applied to comprehensive autoantibody data from a large, well-characterised, multinational inception systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cohort to determine profiles predictive of clinical outcomes. METHODS: Demographic, clinical and serological data from 805 patients with SLE obtained within 15 months of diagnosis and at 3-year and 5-year follow-up were included. For each visit, sera were assessed for 29 antinuclear antibodies (ANA) immunofluorescence patterns and 20 autoantibodies. K-means clustering on principal component analysis-transformed longitudinal autoantibody profiles identified discrete phenotypic clusters. One-way analysis of variance compared cluster enrolment demographics and clinical outcomes at 10-year follow-up. Cox proportional hazards model estimated the HR for survival adjusting for age of disease onset. RESULTS: Cluster 1 (n=137, high frequency of anti-Smith, anti-U1RNP, AC-5 (large nuclear speckled pattern) and high ANA titres) had the highest cumulative disease activity and immunosuppressants/biologics use at year 10. Cluster 2 (n=376, low anti-double stranded DNA (dsDNA) and ANA titres) had the lowest disease activity, frequency of lupus nephritis and immunosuppressants/biologics use. Cluster 3 (n=80, highest frequency of all five antiphospholipid antibodies) had the highest frequency of seizures and hypocomplementaemia. Cluster 4 (n=212) also had high disease activity and was characterised by multiple autoantibody reactivity including to antihistone, anti-dsDNA, antiribosomal P, anti-Sjögren syndrome antigen A or Ro60, anti-Sjögren syndrome antigen B or La, anti-Ro52/Tripartite Motif Protein 21, antiproliferating cell nuclear antigen and anticentromere B). Clusters 1 (adjusted HR 2.60 (95% CI 1.12 to 6.05), p=0.03) and 3 (adjusted HR 2.87 (95% CI 1.22 to 6.74), p=0.02) had lower survival compared with cluster 2. CONCLUSION: Four discrete SLE patient longitudinal autoantibody clusters were predictive of long-term disease activity, organ involvement, treatment requirements and mortality risk.

Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (SLE-BRAVE-I).

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2 approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and alopecia areata. In a 24-week phase 2 study in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), baricitinib 4 mg significantly improved SLE disease activity compared with placebo. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with active SLE in a 52-week phase 3 study. METHODS: In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study, SLE-BRAVE-I, patients (aged ≥18 years) with active SLE receiving stable background therapy were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to baricitinib 4 mg, 2 mg, or placebo once daily for 52 weeks with standard of care. Glucocorticoid tapering was encouraged but not required per protocol. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reaching an SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response at week 52 in the baricitinib 4 mg treatment group compared with placebo. The primary endpoint was assessed by logistic regression analysis with baseline disease activity, baseline corticosteroid dose, region, and treatment group in the model. Efficacy analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of investigational product. Safety analyses were done on all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of investigational product and who did not discontinue from the study for the reason of lost to follow-up at the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03616912. FINDINGS: 760 participants were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of baricitinib 4 mg (n=252), baricitinib 2 mg (n=255), or placebo (n=253). A significantly greater proportion of participants who received baricitinib 4 mg (142 [57%]; odds ratio 1·57 [95% CI 1·09 to 2·27]; difference with placebo 10·8 [2·0 to 19·6]; p=0·016), but not baricitinib 2 mg (126 [50%]; 1·14 [0·79 to 1·65]; 3·9 [-4·9 to 12·6]; p=0·47), reached SRI-4 response compared with placebo (116 [46%]). There were no significant differences between the proportions of participants in either baricitinib group reaching any of the major secondary endpoints compared with placebo, including glucocorticoid tapering and time to first severe flare. 26 (10%) participants receiving baricitinib 4 mg had serious adverse events, 24 (9%) participants receiving baricitinib 2 mg, and 18 (7%) participants receiving placebo. The safety profile of baricitinib in participants with SLE was consistent with the known baricitinib safety profile. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint in this study was met for the 4 mg baricitinib group. However, key secondary endpoints were not. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Assessing the Costs of Neuropsychiatric Disease in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Cohort Using Multistate Modeling.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate direct and indirect costs associated with neuropsychiatric (NP) events in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort. METHODS: NP events were documented annually using American College of Rheumatology definitions for NP events and attributed to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or non-SLE causes. Patients were stratified into 1 of 3 NP states (no, resolved, or new/ongoing NP event). Change in NP status was characterized by interstate transition rates using multistate modeling. Annual direct costs and indirect costs were based on health care use and impaired productivity over the preceding year. Annual costs associated with NP states and NP events were calculated by averaging all observations in each state and adjusted through random-effects regressions. Five- and 10-year costs for NP states were predicted by multiplying adjusted annual costs per state by expected state duration, forecasted using multistate modeling. RESULTS: A total of 1,697 patients (49% White race/ethnicity) were followed for a mean of 9.6 years. NP events (n = 1,971) occurred in 956 patients, 32% attributed to SLE. For SLE and non-SLE NP events, predicted annual, 5-, and 10-year direct costs and indirect costs were higher in new/ongoing versus no events. Direct costs were 1.5-fold higher and indirect costs 1.3-fold higher in new/ongoing versus no events. Indirect costs exceeded direct costs 3.0 to 5.2 fold. Among frequent SLE NP events, new/ongoing seizure disorder and cerebrovascular disease accounted for the largest increases in annual direct costs. For non-SLE NP events, new/ongoing polyneuropathy accounted for the largest increase in annual direct costs, and new/ongoing headache and mood disorder for the largest increases in indirect costs. CONCLUSION: Patients with new/ongoing SLE or non-SLE NP events incurred higher direct and indirect costs.

Time to onset of clinical response to anifrolumab in patients with SLE: pooled data from the phase III TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the time course of clinical response following anifrolumab treatment in patients with SLE. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was conducted using pooled data from phase III, randomised, 52-week, placebo-controlled, Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP)-1 and TULIP-2 trials of intravenous anifrolumab (every 4 weeks, 48 weeks) in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE receiving standard therapy. Anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups were compared for British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response over time, time to sustained BICLA response, SLE Responder Index ≥4 (SRI(4)) response over time, time to sustained Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) response and change in glucocorticoid dosage over time. All p values for comparisons were nominal. RESULTS: Of the 726 evaluated patients (anifrolumab 300 mg, n=360; placebo, n=366), a greater proportion attained a BICLA response in the anifrolumab versus the placebo group from Week 8 (p<0.001); treatment group differentiation was maintained at all subsequent visits to Week 52. Consistently, more patients achieved a BICLA response sustained to Week 52 in the anifrolumab versus placebo group (HR=1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.20). More patients attained SRI(4) response with anifrolumab than placebo from Week 12 (p=0.005). As early as Week 8, more patients achieved CLASI-A skin response sustained to Week 52 with anifrolumab versus placebo (HR=1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.55). Glucocorticoid dosage reductions from baseline were greater in anifrolumab-treated versus placebo-treated patients from Week 20 (p=0.010) through Week 52. CONCLUSIONS: Anifrolumab treatment was associated with sustained improvements in overall SLE disease activity and skin responses versus placebo from Week 8, which likely led to greater glucocorticoid reductions in the anifrolumab versus placebo groups from Week 20. These findings provide insights to physicians and patients on when to expect potential clinical responses following anifrolumab treatment.

Evaluating the Construct of Damage in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC), American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the Lupus Foundation of America are developing a revised systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) damage index (the SLICC/ACR Damage Index [SDI]). Shifts in the concept of damage in SLE have occurred with new insights into disease manifestations, diagnostics, and therapy. We evaluated contemporary constructs in SLE damage to inform development of the revised SDI. METHODS: We conducted a 3-part qualitative study of international SLE experts. Facilitated small groups evaluated the construct underlying the concept of damage in SLE. A consensus meeting using nominal group technique was conducted to achieve agreement on aspects of the conceptual framework and scope of the revised damage index. The framework was finally reviewed and agreed upon by the entire group. RESULTS: Fifty participants from 13 countries were included. The 8 thematic clusters underlying the construct of SLE damage were purpose, items, weighting, reversibility, impact, time frame, attribution, and perspective. The revised SDI will be a discriminative index to measure morbidity in SLE, independent of activity or impact on the patient, and should be related to mortality. The SDI is primarily intended for research purposes and should take a life-course approach. Damage can occur before a diagnosis of SLE but should be attributable to SLE. Damage to an organ is irreversible, but the functional consequences on that organ may improve over time through physiological adaptation or treatment. CONCLUSION: We identified shifts in the paradigm of SLE damage and developed a unifying conceptual framework. These data form the groundwork for the next phases of SDI development.