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.

Baricitinib further enhances disease-modifying effects by uncoupling the link between disease activity and joint structural progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, further enhances disease-modifying effects by uncoupling the link between disease activity and structural damage progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using two phase III randomised, double-blinded trials. METHODS: In RA-BEAM, patients with established RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) received placebo (PBO), baricitinib 4 mg or adalimumab 40 mg on background MTX. In RA-BEGIN, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD)-naïve patients received MTX, baricitinib 4 mg or baricitinib 4 mg plus MTX. Using linear regression analyses, joint damage progression (assessed by change from baseline in van der Heijde modification of the Total Sharp Score) was compared between treatment groups for patients achieving certain disease activity states by the Clinical Disease Activity Index. Time-averaged postbaseline responses were used to week 24 (RA-BEAM) and week 52 (RA-BEGIN). RESULTS: For MTX-IR patients, structural damage progression was reduced regardless of disease activity states in baricitinib-treated patients (p=0.6), whereas in PBO patients there was a clear dependence on disease activity states, being significantly lower in those who achieved remission/low disease activity (REM/LDA) compared with moderate/high disease activity (MDA/HDA) (p=0.02). Furthermore, the baricitinib MDA/HDA group had less damage progression than the PBO MDA/HDA group (p<0.001). For csDMARD-naïve patients, progression was lower in REM/LDA versus MDA/HDA within the MTX group (p<0.001). However, for baricitinib+MTX (p=0.5) or baricitinib monotherapy (p=0.07), progression was similar regardless of disease activity. In MDA/HDA groups, progression was lower with baricitinib+MTX (p<0.001) and numerically lower with baricitinib monotherapy (p=0.07) versus MTX. C reactive protein (≤5 mg/L and >5 mg/L) sensitivity analyses supported the primary findings. CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib reduces structural damage progression versus PBO with background MTX and/or MTX, even in patients with MDA/HDA, showing a disease-modifying effect across all disease activity states.

Mechanism of action of baricitinib and identification of biomarkers and key immune pathways in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the mechanism of action of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, and describe immunological pathways related to disease activity in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving standard background therapy in a phase II trial. METHODS: Patients with SLE were treated with baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg in a phase II randomised, placebo-controlled study. Sera from 239 patients (baricitinib 2 mg: n=88; baricitinib 4 mg: n=82; placebo: n=69) and 49 healthy controls (HCs) were collected at baseline and week 12 and analysed using a proximity extension assay (Target 96 Inflammation Panel (Olink)). Interferon (IFN) scores were determined using an mRNA panel. Analytes were compared in patients with SLE versus HCs and in changes from baseline at week 12 between baricitinib 2 mg, 4 mg and placebo groups using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures. Spearman correlations were computed for analytes and clinical measurements. RESULTS: At baseline, SLE sera had strong cytokine dysregulation relative to HC sera. C-C motif chemokine ligand (CCL) 19, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand (CXCL) 10, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), TNF receptor superfamily member (TNFRSF)9/CD137, PD-L1, IL-6 and IL-12ß were significantly reduced in patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg versus placebo at week 12. Inflammatory biomarkers indicated correlations/associations with type I IFN (CCL19, CXCL10, TNF-α and PD-L1), anti-double stranded DNA (dsDNA) (TNF-α, CXCL10) and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000, tender and swollen joint count and worst joint pain (CCL19, IL-6 and TNFRSF9/CD137). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that baricitinib 4 mg downregulated key cytokines that are upregulated in patients with SLE and may play a role in a multitargeted mechanism beyond the IFN signature although clinical relevance remains to be further delineated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02708095.

Quality of life in patients with breakthrough cancer pain in radiation oncology departments in Spain: the CAVIDIOR study.

Aim: The CAVIDIOR study evaluated quality of life (QoL) in patients with breakthrough cancer pain receiving palliative radiation therapy in radiation oncology departments (RODs) in Spain. Patients & methods: Prospective observational study at 11 Spanish RODs (July 2016-November 2017). QoL was assessed using Short Form Health Survey 12. Secondary end points were sleep quality, caregiver burden and patient/perception of improvement. Results: QoL improved according to the Short Form Health Survey 12 mental component. Sleep quality and caregivers' burden improved significantly. Conclusion: Breakthrough cancer pain is highly prevalent and can be substantially reduced with appropriate diagnosis and management in RODs. Along with the QoL questionnaire, sleep quality and caregiver burden provide a more comprehensive assessment of overall health status in patients receiving radiation therapy in RODs. Clinical trial registration: NCT02836379 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab versus adalimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug: final results by week 52.

OBJECTIVES: SPIRIT head-to-head (H2H) is a 52-week (Wk) trial comparing ixekizumab (IXE) with adalimumab (ADA) for simultaneous American College of Rheumatology (ACR)50 and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)100 responses in 566 patients (distributed evenly across both groups) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). IXE was superior to ADA for this primary end point at Wk24. We aimed to determine the final efficacy and safety results through Wk52 including a prespecified subgroup analysis of concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD) use. METHODS: SPIRIT-H2H is a Wk52 multicentre, open-label, blinded-assessor study comparing IXE and ADA in bionaïve patients with PsA. Patients were randomised 1:1 to IXE or ADA with stratification by concomitant csDMARD use and presence of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Prespecified end points at Wk24 and Wk52 included musculoskeletal, psoriasis, quality-of life outcomes, subgroup analyses and safety. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with IXE versus ADA simultaneously achieved ACR50 and PASI100 (39% vs 26%, p<0.001), PASI100 (64% vs 41%, p<0.001) at Wk52. Efficacy of IXE and ADA was similar at Wk52 for ACR50 (49.8% vs 49.8%, p=0.924), treat-to-target outcomes, enthesitis and dactylitis resolution. Responses to IXE were consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use. Significantly more patients on IXE monotherapy versus ADA monotherapy had simultaneous ACR50 and PASI100 (38% vs 19%, p=0.007), and PASI100 responses (66% vs 35%, p<0.001) at Wk52. There were no new safety findings for IXE or ADA. CONCLUSIONS: IXE provided significantly greater simultaneous joint and skin improvement than ADA through Wk52 in bionaïve patients with PsA. IXE showed better efficacy on psoriasis and performed at least as well as ADA on musculoskeletal manifestations. IXE efficacy was consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03151551.

Dose reduction of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieving sustained disease control: results of a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effects of dose step-down in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved sustained disease control with baricitinib 4 mg once a day. METHODS: Patients who completed a baricitinib phase 3 study could enter a long-term extension (LTE). In the LTE, patients who received baricitinib 4 mg for ≥15 months and maintained CDAI low disease activity (LDA) or remission (REM) were blindly randomised to continue 4 mg or taper to 2 mg. Patients could rescue (to 4 mg) if needed. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 48 weeks. RESULTS: Patients in both groups maintained LDA (80% 4 mg; 67% 2 mg) or REM (40% 4 mg; 33% 2 mg) over 48 weeks. However, dose reduction resulted in small, statistically significant increases in disease activity at 12, 24 and 48 weeks. Dose reduction also produced earlier and more frequent relapse (loss of step-down criteria) over 48 weeks compared with 4 mg maintenance (23% 4 mg vs 37% 2 mg, p=0.001). Rescue rates were 10% for baricitinib 4 mg and 18% for baricitinib 2 mg. Dose reduction was associated with a numerically lower rate of non-serious infections (30.6 for baricitinib 4 mg vs 24.9 for 2 mg). Rates of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomised, blinded phase 3 study, maintenance of RA control following induction of sustained LDA/REM with baricitinib 4 mg was greater with continued 4 mg than after taper to 2 mg. Nonetheless, most patients tapered to 2 mg could maintain LDA/REM or recapture with return to 4 mg if needed.

The effect of JAK1/JAK2 inhibition in rheumatoid arthritis: efficacy and safety of baricitinib.

Numerous cytokines have been implicated in the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases, and their dysregulation is a main feature of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Cytokines stimulate signal transduction through several intracellular pathways, including Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription (STAT) pathways, leading to changes in cell activation, proliferation and survival. Consequently, agents that selectively target elements of the JAK/STAT pathways have received significant attention in recent years as potential new treatments for the disease. Baricitinib, an oral selective inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2, offers an effective treatment for RA in a wide range of patients. The in vitro selectivity of different JAK inhibitors is an important consideration given that key cytokines, growth factors and hormone receptors involved in the pathogenesis of RA signal through specific JAKs. However, it is complex and far from understood how the in vitro effects of JAK inhibitors extrapolate into in vivo and clinical effects in individual patients. This narrative review focuses on the clinical efficacy and safety of baricitinib, but also provides an overview of its mechanism of action in relation to JAK1/JAK2 signalling and discusses the possible clinical implications in patients with RA.

Call for action: how to improve use of patient-reported outcomes to guide clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis.

Current guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend early treatment and a treat-to-target goal of remission or low disease activity. Over the past decade, this approach has been extremely successful in reducing disease activity and joint damage in patients with RA. At the same time, however, overall patient perception of well-being appears to have decreased with respect to outcome measures considered important by patients themselves, such as pain, fatigue, physical function and quality of life. The timely and effective use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) could encourage physicians to focus more on the impact of RA on patients and how patients are feeling. This in turn would facilitate shared decision making between patients and physicians, ultimately leading to a more patient-centered approach and improved patient care. Indeed, PROs provide information about individual patients that complements information provided by physical assessment and composite scores, and can also be used to guide patient care, such as determining whether a clinic visit is needed or whether treatment modifications are necessary. This is particularly important for patients who do not achieve the aspirational target of remission or low disease activity with pharmacological treatment. A number of validated PRO questionnaires are available, but how and which PROs should be incorporated into rheumatology clinical practice as part of the decision-making process is still controversial. Combining PROs with technology, such as computer adaptive tests, electronic PRO systems, web-based platforms and patient dashboards, could further aid PRO integration into daily rheumatology clinical practice.

Baricitinib in patients with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs: results from the RA-BUILD study.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral, reversible, selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor. METHODS: In this phase III, double-blind 24-week study, 684 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARDs were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to placebo or baricitinib (2 or 4 mg) once daily, stratified by region and the presence of joint erosions. Endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20, primary endpoint), Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3. RESULTS: More patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib 4 mg than with placebo (62% vs 39%, p≤0.001). Compared with placebo, statistically significant improvements in DAS28, SDAI remission, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, morning joint stiffness, worst joint pain and worst tiredness were observed. In a supportive analysis, radiographic progression of structural joint damage at week 24 was reduced with baricitinib versus placebo. Rates of adverse events during the treatment period and serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, were similar among groups (SAEs: 5% for baricitinib 4 mg and placebo). One patient had an adverse event of tuberculosis (baricitinib 4 mg); one patient had an adverse event of non-melanoma skin cancer (baricitinib 4 mg). Two deaths and three major adverse cardiovascular events occurred (placebo). Baricitinib was associated with a decrease in neutrophils and increases in low-density and high-density lipoprotein. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs, baricitinib was associated with clinical improvement and inhibition of progression of radiographic joint damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01721057; Results.

Ultrasound-detected activity in rheumatoid arthritis on methotrexate therapy: Which joints and tendons should be assessed to predict unstable remission?

The aim of the study was to investigate the predictive value of different reduced joint ultrasound (US) assessments of synovitis and tenosynovitis in relation to unstable remission in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients on methotrexate therapy. Forty-seven RA patients (38 women, 9 men), being treated with methotrexate (MTX), in clinical remission as judged by their consultant rheumatologist were evaluated for disease activity according to the Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 at baseline and 6 months. Sustained remission and unstable remission were defined according to the baseline and 6-month DAS28 and changes in RA therapy during the follow-up. Each patient underwent at baseline a B-mode and power Doppler (PD) assessment of 44 joints and 20 tendons/tendon compartments by a rheumatologist blinded to the clinical and laboratory data. B-mode synovial hypertrophy (SH), synovial PD signal, B-mode tenosynovitis, and Doppler tenosynovitis were scored 0-3. The presence and index of synovial PD signal in 44 joints [odds ratio (OR) 8.21 (p = 0.016) and OR 2.20 (p = 0.049), respectively] and in 12 joints [OR 5.82 (p = 0.041) and OR 4.19 (p = 0.020), respectively], the presence of SH in wrist and MCP joints [OR 4.79 (p = 0.045)], and the presence of synovial PD signal in wrist-MCP-ankle-MTP joints [OR 4.62 (p = 0.046)] were predictors of unstable remission. The 12-joint or wrist-hand-ankle-MTP US assessments can predict unstable remission in RA patients in apparent clinical remission being treated with MTX.

Predictive value of Doppler ultrasound-detected synovitis in relation to failed tapering of biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive value of synovitis detected by Doppler US in relation to failed tapering of biologic therapy (BT) in RA patients in sustained clinical remission. METHODS: A total of 77 RA patients (52 women, 25 men) in sustained clinical remission, treated with a stable dosage of BT were prospectively recruited. BT was tapered according to an agreed strategy implemented in clinical practice (i.e. increasing the interval between doses for s.c. BT and reducing the dose for i.v. BT). BT tapering failure was assessed at 6 and 12 months. Doppler US investigation of 42 joints for the presence and grade (0-3) of B-mode synovial hypertrophy and synovial power Doppler signal (i.e. Doppler synovitis) was performed at baseline by a rheumatologist blinded to clinical and laboratory data. Hand and foot radiographs were obtained at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 77 patients, 46 (59.7%) were on s.c. BT and 31 (40.3%) on i.v. BT. At 12 months, 35 patients (45.5%) presented BT tapering failure, 23 of them (29.9% of all patients) in the first 6 months of BT tapering. In logistic regression analysis, the baseline DAS28 and the global score of Doppler synovitis were identified as independent predictors of BT tapering failure at 12 and 6 months. The presence of Doppler synovitis was the strongest predictor for BT tapering failure. No patient showed radiographic progression. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the presence of Doppler-detected synovitis may predict BT tapering failure in RA patients in sustained clinical remission.

Agreement in assessment of infliximab and adalimumab levels in rheumatoid arthritis: interlaboratory and interassay comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL) drug levels and anti-drug antibodies (ADA) are assessed using a variety of techniques, therefore, results cannot accurately be compared for clinical purposes. The aim of this study was to test two infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL) ELISA versions, for drug levels and ADA, to see whether they yield similar results. METHODS: ELISA versions [Promonitor® IFX R1 and R2 (V.1), Promonitor® IFX and Anti-IFX (V.2); Promonitor® ADL R1 and R2 (V.1), Promonitor® ADL and Anti-ADL (V.2) kits (Progenika Biopharma, Spain)] were used to measure drug levels and ADA in IFX (n=24) and ADL (n=24) rheumatoid arthritis-treated patients in three independent laboratories. Quantitative and qualitative agreements were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Cohen's Kappa (κ) respectively. The Bland-Altman plots assessed differences between V.1 and V.2. RESULTS: Interlaboratory agreement (ICC/κ) with V.1 was poor for IFX (0.66/0.62) and ADL (0.69/0.52) drug levels; meanwhile, high agreement was found with V.2 for IFX (0.98/0.95) and ADL (0.094/1.00). Comparison between V.1 and V.2 in each laboratory resulted in systematically higher values in V.2 than in V.1 and poor agreement (ICC/κ ranges) for IFX (0.12-0.7/ 0.19-0.42) and ADL (0.69-0.89 /0.50-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative measurements result in better agreement, as evidenced in our study. Greater agreement in V.2 compared with V.1 for IFX and ADL levels could be due to a better tune up. Further studies are required to standardise methods to establish therapeutic reference ranges.

Comparison of two ELISA versions for infliximab serum levels in patients diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis.

There are various immunosorbent assays which can be used to determine infliximab (IFX) levels. Results vary between assays complicating reliability in everyday clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine whether quantitative or qualitative assay data prove more accurate in the assessment of infliximab levels in AS patients. We analyzed 40 serum samples, taken prior to infusion, from AS patients who had been undergoing IFX therapy as a first-line of biological treatment for more than a year. IFX levels and IFX-anti-drug antibodies (ADA) were measured using two different ELISA assays [Promonitor IFX R1 and R2 (version 1), Promonitor IFX and anti-IFX (version 2) (Progenika Biopharma, Spain)] strictly following the manufacturer's guidelines. Cohen's unweighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient determined qualitative and quantitative agreement for serum levels in version 1 and version 2. Bland-Altman plots were drawn to compare both assays. The comparison of data measuring IFX levels for version 1 and version 2 resulted in questionable quantitative agreement (ICC 0.659; 95% CI 0.317-0.830) and moderate qualitative agreement (κ 0.607; 95% CI 0.387-0.879) owing to systematically higher values in version 2 than version 1. Version 2 consistently detected higher levels of infliximab, particularly when analyzed in a quantitative context. Further research is needed to synchronize cutoff levels between essays and diseases so therapeutic drug ranges can be established.

Clinical relevance of monitoring serum levels of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in daily practice.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to assess the usefulness of measuring serum levels of adalimumab (ADL) and anti-ADL antibodies in 57 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with ADL for at least 3 months in daily practice. METHODS: All patients received concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). Receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to obtain the cut-off value of ADL for low disease activity (DAS28-ESR ≤3.2). RESULTS: Anti-ADL antibodies were detected in 4 (7%) patients with a mean (SD) DAS28 score of 4.6 (0.9). Patients with positive anti-ADL antibodies had significantly lower levels of ADL and higher DAS28 scores than those with negative antibodies. Patients with DAS28 ≤3.2 as compared with patients with DAS28 >3.2 showed significantly better SDAI score, higher serum concentrations of ADL and none of them showed anti-ADL antibodies. The cut-off of serum level of ADL for DAS28 <3.2 was 4.3 mg/L. According to serum levels of ADL, patients were grouped into group 1 (low level) <5.5 mg/L, group 2 (medium level) 5.5-11.3 mg/L and group 3 (high level) >11.3 mg/L. Patients in the medium group were closed to clinical remission (median DAS28 2.7) and patients in the high group were on clinical remission (DAS28 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Serum levels of ADL should be maintained >4.3 mg/L. In patients with ADL levels >11.3 mg/L, a decrease of the dose of ADL or an increase in the interval between doses may be planned. The presence of anti-ADL antibodies was associated with a loss of clinical efficacy of ADL.

Young male patient diagnosed with cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa successfully treated with etanercept.

Cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa (CPAN) is a form of necrotizing vasculitis of small and medium-sized arteries. It is limited to the skin and has a recurrent and chronic course, possibly associated with fever, arthralgia, myalgia and neuropathy, but without visceral involvement. We report the clinical case of a 7-year-old male patient with CPAN refractory to treatment with high doses of corticoids and cyclophosphamide, who was successfully treated with the TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-alpha) inhibitor, etanercept, in monotherapy.

Patient self-assessment and physician's assessment of rheumatoid arthritis activity: which is more realistic in remission status? A comparison with ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare disease activity assessed by the patient, the physician and musculoskeletal US in patients with RA in clinical remission. METHODS: We evaluated 69 patients with RA in clinical remission according to their attending rheumatologist. Tenderness and swelling in 28 joints were blindly assessed by patients and physicians. The presence of B-mode and Doppler synovitis was blindly investigated in the above joints. The DAS28 and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) were calculated. RESULTS: The percentage of patients in remission according to the self-derived DAS28 (26.1%) was significantly less than that according to the physician-derived DAS28 (52.2%) (P < 0.0005). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients in remission according to the self-derived SDAI (14.5%) and the physician-derived SDAI (11.6%) (P = 0.172). We found moderate agreement between the patient-derived and physician-derived DAS28 and SDAI [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.620 and ICC = 0.678, respectively]. Agreement between patient and physician was better for the tender joint count (TJC; ICC = 0.509) than for the swollen joint count (SJC; ICC = 0.279). The mean (S.D.) count for B-mode synovitis [4.09 (3.25)] was significantly greater than the SJC assessed by both the patient and physician [2 (3.71) and 1.42 (2.03), respectively] (P < 0.0005 and P = 0.033, respectively). We found moderate agreement between the physician-assessed SJC and the joint count for Doppler synovitis (ICC = 0.528). CONCLUSION: Patient-assessed and physician-assessed overall RA activity showed acceptable agreement. Patient self-assessment overestimated disease activity determined by the DAS28. At the patient level, physician-assessed joint swelling showed an acceptable concordance with Doppler US synovitis.

Young male patient diagnosed with cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa successfully treated with etanercept.

Cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa (CPAN) is a form of necrotizing vasculitis of small and medium-sized arteries. It is limited to the skin and has a recurrent and chronic course, possibly associated with fever, arthralgia, myalgia and neuropathy, but without visceral involvement. We report the clinical case of a 7-year-old male patient with CPAN refractory to treatment with high doses of corticoids and cyclophosphamide, who was successfully treated with the TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-alpha) inhibitor, etanercept, in monotherapy.

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

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

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

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