Canadian Rheumatology Association Living Guidelines for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Update #2.

We have updated the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with 3 recommendations for the use of glucocorticoids (GCs). The recommendations address the use of short-term GCs for RA flares or as bridging therapy when disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are initiated or changed, and the use of long-term GCs as adjuncts to DMARDs.

Biologics initiation in moderate versus severe rheumatoid arthritis: real-world experience from a Canadian registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the treat-to-target experience, and quality of life measures of moderate and severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating a biologic in a real-world setting of a publicly funded payer system. METHODS: Biologic naive RA patients who had initiated their first biologic while enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative registry from 2008 to 2020 were selected if they had moderate (DAS28 >3.2 to ≤5.1) or severe (DAS28 >5.1) RA. Remission, LDA, DAS28, HAQ-DI, fatigue, sleep, drug persistence and characteristics associated with remission were assessed at 12 months post biologic initiation. RESULTS: Overall, 838 patients initiated their first biologic, 264 had moderate RA and 219 had severe RA. After 12 months, 44% moderate RA vs. 21% severe RA achieved remission (p<0.0001), and 59% moderate RA vs. 35% severe RA reached LDA (p<0.0001). Mean change (SD) from baseline in DAS28 was 2.2 (1.5) in severe RA vs. 1.4 (1.3) in moderate RA (p<0.0001), in fatigue score was 1.11 (3.2) in severe RA vs. 0.98 (3.2) in moderate RA (p<0.0001). Moderate disease at a biologic initiation was positively associated with remission (p=0.0016). Female gender (p=0.0170), and a higher HAQ-DI score at baseline (p=0.0042) were negatively associated with remission. Biologic persistence was 77% for moderate, and 73% for severe (p=0.2444). CONCLUSIONS: Severe RA patients had higher mean score improvements in DAS28, sleep and fatigue. Moderate RA was more likely to reach remission or LDA. Both groups had similar biologic persistence at 12 months. These findings highlight the importance of the treat-to-target approach and its potential underutilisation in the real-world setting.

Impact of anti-rheumatic treatment on the individual components of the ACR composite score in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Standard criteria for measuring treatment efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, which require meeting a threshold of ≥20/50/70% improvement in several physician- and patient-reported measures. We aimed to evaluate the impact of csDMARDs, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and tofacitinib (TOFA) on ACR components in real-life practice. METHODS: Clinical data of RA patients with a CDAI >10 at the time they started a treatment were pooled from two registries: Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) and RHUMADATA. Endpoints included proportions of patients achieving: ACR20/50/70 responses, ≥20/50/70% improvements and mean percentage improvement in individual ACR components at Month 6. We also adjusted for potential confounders to compare impact of these medications on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 669 patients were included (csDMARD, n=157, TNFi, n=252; TOFA, n=260). An overall higher proportion in all three-medication groups achieved ≥20/50/70% improvement in primary ACR components vs. secondary components. Among secondary components, ≥20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically highest for PhGA and lowest for HAQ-DI and pain. Among ACR20/50/70 responders for all medications, the mean percentage improvement was more than 80% for primary components, and ranged from 30% to 80% for secondary components. A significantly lower proportion of patients in TNFi group achieved to at least 50% improvement in pain compared to TOFA after adjusting. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world practice, physician-reported measures contribute slightly more to overall ACR20/50/70 responses. Pain was the most important factor in achieving an ACR50 TOFA users, possibly reflecting the different effects of JAKi on pain.

Retention of triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine compared to combination methotrexate and leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: There are various combination conventional synthetic disease-modifying-antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) treatment strategies used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A commonly used csDMARD combination is triple therapy with methotrexate (MTX), sulfasalazine (SSZ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Another approach is double therapy with MTX and leflunomide (LEF). We compared the real-world retention of these two treatment combinations. METHODS: Patients with RA from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) who received triple or double therapy on or after OBRI enrolment were included. Retention rates were compared between these two groups. We also analyzed which medication in the combination was discontinued and the reasons for treatment discontinuation. Disease activity was assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation as well as at time of discontinuation. Risk factors for treatment discontinuation were also examined. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety-two patients were included (258 triple and 434 double therapy). There were 175 (67.8%) discontinuations in the triple therapy group and 287 (66.1%) discontinuations in patients on double therapy. The median survival for triple therapy was longer (15.1 months; 95% CI: 11.2-21.2) compared to double therapy (9.6 months; 95%CI: 7.03-12.2). However, this was not statistically significant. Disease activity at 6 and 12 months, measured by 28-joint count Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) was lower with triple therapy (mean DAS28 at 6 months 3.4 vs. 3.9, P<0.0001 and at 12 months 3.2 vs. 3.5, P=0.0005). CONCLUSION: Patients on triple therapy remained on treatment longer than patients on double therapy. However, this difference was not statistically significant.