The pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis.

Significant recent progress in understanding rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis has led to improved treatment and quality of life. The introduction of targeted-biologic and -synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has also transformed clinical outcomes. Despite this, RA remains a life-long disease without a cure. Unmet needs include partial response and non-response to treatment in many patients, failure to achieve immune homeostasis or drug free remission, and inability to repair damaged tissues. RA is now recognized as the end of a multi-year prodromal phase in which systemic immune dysregulation, likely beginning in mucosal surfaces, is followed by a symptomatic clinical phase. Inflammation and immune reactivity are primarily localized to the synovium leading to pain and articular damage, but is also associated with a broader series of comorbidities. Here, we review recently described immunologic mechanisms that drive breach of tolerance, chronic synovitis, and remission.

Cytokine Networks in the Pathophysiology of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract. Cytokine-targeted therapies have transformed the treatment of IBD, providing control of symptoms and longer relapse-free periods. However, many patients fail to respond, highlighting the need for therapies tailored to the underlying cell and molecular disease drivers. Here we discuss the progression of IBD from the perspective of remodeling of cytokine networks. We place well-established and under-studied cytokine modules in the context of cellular interactions, their dynamic regulation in early and late stages of disease (i.e., fibrosis), and their current and potential use in the clinic. Examining how particular cytokine networks drive distinct features and phases of IBD will shed light on the etiology of IBD and provide a basis for more effective treatments.

Precision Medicine in Rheumatic Diseases: Unlocking the Potential of Antibody-Drug Conjugates.

In the era of precision medicine, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have emerged as a cutting-edge therapeutic strategy. These innovative compounds combine the precision of monoclonal antibodies with the potent cell-killing or immune-modulating abilities of attached drug payloads. This unique strategy not only reduces off-target toxicity but also enhances the therapeutic effectiveness of drugs. Beyond their well established role in oncology, ADCs are now showing promising potential in addressing the unmet needs in the therapeutics of rheumatic diseases. Rheumatic diseases, a diverse group of chronic autoimmune diseases with varying etiologies, clinical presentations, and prognoses, often demand prolonged pharmacological interventions, creating a pressing need for novel, efficient, and low-risk treatment options. ADCs, with their ability to precisely target the immune components, have emerged as a novel therapeutic strategy in this context. This review will provide an overview of the core components and mechanisms behind ADCs, a summary of the latest clinical trials of ADCs for the treatment of rheumatic diseases, and a discussion of the challenges and future prospects faced by the development of next-generation ADCs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: There is a lack of efficient and low-risk targeted therapeutics for rheumatic diseases. Antibody-drug conjugates, a class of cutting-edge therapeutic drugs, have emerged as a promising targeted therapeutic strategy for rheumatic disease. Although there is limited literature summarizing the progress of antibody-drug conjugates in the field of rheumatic disease, updating the advancements in this area provides novel insights into the development of novel antirheumatic drugs.

A Phase 2 Trial of Peresolimab for Adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Peresolimab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody designed to stimulate the endogenous programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitory pathway. Stimulation of this pathway would be a novel approach to the treatment of patients with autoimmune or autoinflammatory diseases. METHODS: In this phase 2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 2:1:1 ratio, adult patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who had had an inadequate response to, a loss of response to, or unacceptable side effects with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs to receive 700 mg of peresolimab, 300 mg of peresolimab, or placebo intravenously once every 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 12 in the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP). The DAS28-CRP ranges from 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The primary comparison was between the 700-mg group and the placebo group. Secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients with American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses - defined as improvements from baseline of 20%, 50%, and 70% or more, respectively, in the numbers of tender and swollen joints and in at least three of five important domains - at week 12. RESULTS: At week 12, the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP was significantly greater in the 700-mg peresolimab group than in the placebo group (least-squares mean change [±SE], -2.09±0.18 vs. -0.99±0.26; difference in change, -1.09 [95% confidence interval, -1.73 to -0.46]; P<0.001). The results of the analyses of secondary outcomes favored the 700-mg dose over placebo with respect to the ACR20 response but not with respect to the ACR50 and ACR70 responses. Adverse events were similar in the peresolimab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Peresolimab showed efficacy in a phase 2a trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. These results provide evidence that stimulation of the PD-1 receptor has potential efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04634253.).

Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority, postauthorization, safety end-point trial involving patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment who were 50 years of age or older and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily or a TNF inhibitor. The coprimary end points were adjudicated MACE and cancers, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The noninferiority of tofacitinib would be shown if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was less than 1.8 for the combined tofacitinib doses as compared with a TNF inhibitor. RESULTS: A total of 1455 patients received tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg twice daily, 1456 received tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, and 1451 received a TNF inhibitor. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, the incidences of MACE and cancer were higher with the combined tofacitinib doses (3.4% [98 patients] and 4.2% [122 patients], respectively) than with a TNF inhibitor (2.5% [37 patients] and 2.9% [42 patients]). The hazard ratios were 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.94) for MACE and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.09) for cancers; the noninferiority of tofacitinib was not shown. The incidences of adjudicated opportunistic infections (including herpes zoster and tuberculosis), all herpes zoster (nonserious and serious), and adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer were higher with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor. Efficacy was similar in all three groups, with improvements from month 2 that were sustained through trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial comparing the combined tofacitinib doses with a TNF inhibitor in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population, risks of MACE and cancers were higher with tofacitinib and did not meet noninferiority criteria. Several adverse events were more common with tofacitinib. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Surveillance ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092467.).

Olokizumab versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cytokine interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Olokizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 cytokine directly, is being tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, placebo- and active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate to receive subcutaneous olokizumab at a dose of 64 mg every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), or placebo; all patients continued methotrexate therapy. The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% fewer tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in three of five other domains) at week 12, with each olokizumab dose tested for superiority to placebo. We also tested the noninferiority of each olokizumab dose to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response (noninferiority margin, -12 percentage points in the lower boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between groups). RESULTS: A total of 464 patients were assigned to receive olokizumab every 2 weeks, 479 to receive olokizumab every 4 weeks, 462 to receive adalimumab, and 243 to receive placebo. An ACR20 response at week 12 occurred in 44.4% of the patients receiving placebo, in 70.3% receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 25.9 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 17.1 to 34.1), in 71.4% receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 27.0 percentage points; 97.5% CI, 18.3 to 35.2), and in 66.9% receiving adalimumab (difference vs. placebo, 22.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 14.8 to 29.8) (P<0.001 for the superiority of each olokizumab dose to placebo). Both olokizumab doses were noninferior to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 (difference, 3.4 percentage points [97.5% CI, -3.5 to 10.2] with olokizumab every 2 weeks and 4.5 percentage points [97.5% CI, -2.2 to 11.2] with olokizumab every 4 weeks). Adverse events, most commonly infections, occurred in approximately 70% of the patients who received olokizumab. Antibodies against olokizumab were detected in 3.8% of the patients receiving the drug every 2 weeks and in 5.1% of those receiving it every 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving maintenance methotrexate, olokizumab was superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab in producing an ACR20 response at 12 weeks. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Supported by R-Pharm; CREDO2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407.).

In patients at high risk for RA, abatacept reduced inflammation and RA development at 6 mo.

SOURCE CITATION: Rech J, Tascilar K, Hagen M, et al. Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2024;403:850-859. 38364841.

Pain Reduction With Oral Methotrexate in Knee Osteoarthritis : A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) are limited. Previous small studies suggest that the antirheumatic drug methotrexate may be a potential treatment for OA pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess symptomatic benefits of methotrexate in knee OA (KOA). DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done between 13 June 2014 and 13 October 2017. (ISRCTN77854383; EudraCT: 2013-001689-41). SETTING: 15 secondary care musculoskeletal clinics in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 207 participants with symptomatic, radiographic KOA and knee pain (severity ≥4 out of 10) on most days in the past 3 months with inadequate response to current medication were approached for inclusion. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation 10 to 25 mg) or matched placebo over 12 months and continued usual analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was average knee pain (numerical rating scale [NRS] 0 to 10) at 6 months, with 12-month follow-up to assess longer-term response. Secondary end points included knee stiffness and function outcomes and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 155 participants (64% women; mean age, 60.9 years; 50% Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 to 4) were randomly assigned to methotrexate (n = 77) or placebo (n = 78). Follow-up was 86% (n = 134; methotrexate: 66, placebo: 68) at 6 months. Mean knee pain decreased from 6.4 (SD, 1.80) at baseline to 5.1 (SD, 2.32) at 6 months in the methotrexate group and from 6.8 (SD, 1.62) to 6.2 (SD, 2.30) in the placebo group. The primary intention-to-treat analysis showed a statistically significant pain reduction of 0.79 NRS points in favor of methotrexate (95% CI, 0.08 to 1.51; P = 0.030). There were also statistically significant treatment group differences in favor of methotrexate at 6 months for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index stiffness (0.60 points [CI, 0.01 to 1.18]; P = 0.045) and function (5.01 points [CI, 1.29 to 8.74]; P = 0.008). Treatment adherence analysis supported a dose-response effect. Four unrelated serious AEs were reported (methotrexate: 2, placebo: 2). LIMITATION: Not permitting oral methotrexate to be changed to subcutaneous delivery for intolerance. CONCLUSION: Oral methotrexate added to usual medications demonstrated statistically significant reduction in KOA pain, stiffness, and function at 6 months. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Versus Arthritis.

Rheumatology: What You May Have Missed in 2023.

Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive care from physicians other than rheumatologists. Here we note key findings from 6 studies in rheumatology published in 2023 that offer valuable insights for internal medicine specialists and subspecialists outside of rheumatology. The first study investigated the effect of low-dose glucocorticoids on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 2 years and challenged existing perceptions about the risks of glucocorticoids in this setting. The second study focused on the updated guideline for preventing and treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. With the chronic and widespread use of glucocorticoids, the American College of Rheumatology emphasized the importance of assessing fracture risk and initiating pharmacologic therapy when appropriate. The third study explored the potential use of methotrexate in treating inflammatory hand osteoarthritis, suggesting a novel approach to managing this challenging and common condition. The results of the fourth article we highlight suggest that sarilumab has promise as an adjunct treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica relapse during glucocorticoid dosage tapering. The fifth study evaluated sublingual cyclobenzaprine for fibromyalgia treatment, noting both potential benefits and risks. Finally, the sixth article is a systematic review and meta-analysis that assessed the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilars and reference biologics in the treatment of patients with RA. Knowledge of this recent literature will be useful to clinicians regardless of specialty who care for patients with these commonly encountered conditions.

Management of postinfectious inflammatory arthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postinfectious inflammatory arthritis can result from various pathogens, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. Prompt identification and treatment of acute infection is vital, but some cases progress to chronic arthritis despite successful treatment of infection. Postinfectious inflammatory arthritis varies from mild, self-limited arthralgia to severe, refractory arthritis, necessitating ongoing disease-modifying treatment. This review explores the spectrum of postinfectious inflammatory arthritis to provide insights into effective management. RECENT FINDINGS: Research continues regarding the benefit of antimicrobial therapy, beyond treatment of the acute infection, to diminish the severity of postinfectious inflammatory arthritis. Following treatment of acute infection, most cases are self-limited so treatment is symptomatic. However, a difficult-to-predict fraction of cases develop chronic postinfectious inflammatory arthritis that can be challenging to manage. Recently, as more biologic, and targeted synthetic DMARDs have become available, treatment options have expanded. SUMMARY: In this article, we use the term 'postinfectious inflammatory arthritis' rather than 'reactive arthritis' because it describes a broader spectrum of diseases and emphasizes the common pathogenesis of a postinfectious inflammatory process. We summarize the conventional therapies and recent management developments for the most frequently encountered postinfectious inflammatory arthritides.

Disease modification in axial spondyloarthritis - still a controversy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review evaluates recent advancements in disease-modifying therapies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). RECENT FINDINGS: A recent study could not demonstrate an additional effect of NSAID therapy on golimumab [Tumor Necrosis Factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)] on structural progression; however, this might be due to the fact that the study was underpowered. While DMARDs have shown promise in suppressing inflammation, their impact on structural progression remains uncertain. A well powered trial showed no difference in spinal progression between secukinumab [Interleukin17A inhibitor (IL17Ai)] and adalimumab-biosimilar (TNFi). Preliminary data on Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) focus on MRI findings but lack evidence on radiographic spinal progression. While some studies suggest promising outcomes, others reveal limitations and inconclusive findings. SUMMARY: Recent studies explore the effectiveness of NSAIDs, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs like TNFi and IL-17i, as well as JAK inhibitors in axSpA. Conflicting evidence surrounds these therapies' ability to impede structural progression, with challenges in study design and interpretation. Moreover, changes in demographics and treatment methods underscore the importance of examining trends over time when assessing disease outcomes. Ultimately, ongoing research could benefit from new imaging tools when evaluating therapeutic strategies for modifying disease progression in axSpA.

Renal disease in pediatric rheumatology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will provide updates in the outcomes in the common rheumatologic diseases with kidney involvement. Covered are also advances in therapeutics for the use of pediatric rheumatologic diseases with kidney involvement, as well as the potential kidney complications from other rheumatologic diseases and their medications. RECENT FINDINGS: Two of the more common rheumatologic diseases with kidney involvement, lupus and vasculitis, continue to show inadequate response to initial therapy of renal disease and practice continues to be driven by results of adult studies. SUMMARY: There is a continued need for pediatric specific studies in rheumatologic diseases with kidney involvement as outcomes continue to be inadequate. Despite recently approved treatments for adults with rheumatic diseases and kidney involvement, therapeutic options in pediatrics remain limited, contributing to the overall morbidity and mortality.

Novel therapies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarises the major novel treatment options for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) since the pandemic, reflecting not only on advancements in therapeutics but also approach to management and research. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent international paediatric trials have been important in advancing understanding of JIA and furthering available treatment options. Biologic and small molecule agents were demonstrated to be effective and safe in recalcitrant or severe JIA (including extra-articular complications), mirroring the adult equivalent diseases. SUMMARY: Although joint and overall health have vastly improved for young people with JIA, ongoing international collaboration, critical review of treatment strategies and high quality research are essential to optimize outcomes.

Updates on interstitial lung disease and other selected extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss changes in epidemiology, recent advances in understanding of the pathogenesis and management of selected extraarticular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (ExRA). RECENT FINDINGS: The incidence of ExRA overall and subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules in particular is declining after 2000. These trends reflect improved RA disease activity with early effective immunosuppressive treatments; changing environmental risk factors can be contributing. ExRA continues to carry a two-fold increased mortality risk. RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is a major contributor to mortality, with no decline in incidence and scant therapeutic options. Individualized risk stratification for RA-ILD based on patient-level risk factors and biomarker profile is evolving with MUC5B as a major genetic risk factor. Clinical trials are underway to evaluate the benefits of novel antifibrotic therapies and targeted therapies for RA-ILD. The risk of cardiovascular disease in RA is generally amendable to treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, although cardiovascular risk associated with JAK inhibition is not fully understood. SUMMARY: Despite reduction in incidence of ExRA overall, the incidence of RA-ILD shows no significant decline and remains a major therapeutic challenge. The use of novel antifibrotics and immunosuppressive drugs shows promise in slowing the progression of RA-ILD.

Drug therapy in juvenile spondyloarthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes latest developments in treatment of juvenile spondyloarthritis (JSpA), specifically enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA). RECENT FINDINGS: There has been addition of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) beyond tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) for JSpA such as IL-17 blockers, IL-23 blockers, and janus activating kinase inhibitors with favorable safety profile. Conducting robust clinical trials for this subpopulation of JIA remains a challenge; extrapolation studies are being used to obtain approval from regulatory agencies. SUMMARY: Newer drug therapies have expanded the scope of treatment for patients with JSpA. bDMARDs such as adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and secukinumab have demonstrated clinically significant treatment efficacy in ERA and JPsA. Based on extrapolation studies, intravenous golimumab, etanercept, abatacept, and ustekinumab have gained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for JPsA. Long-term follow-up studies continue to demonstrate acceptable safety profiles. There is need for more real-world data on drug efficacy from Registry studies and research on effective de-escalation strategies.

Safety of biologic agents for the management of rheumatic diseases during pregnancy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the current understanding regarding the use of biologic therapeutics in pregnancy. RECENT FINDINGS: Our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the potential fetal and infant exposure to biologics as well as a growing body of empirical evidence from real world use of biologics in pregnancy have demonstrated that biologics are generally compatible preconception and during pregnancy. Long-term effects of exposure to biologic agents in utero are not known, but will be uncovered in time. Biosimilars, which are becoming more popular, may not always share the same safety profiles as their originators. SUMMARY: Biologics have revolutionized the management of rheumatologic disease and ushered in a new era of clinical remission among patients. These agents, developed and introduced into clinical use at the beginning of the new millennium, are very potent, yet their efficacy in treating disease often in reproductive aged women, raises questions regarding their safety during pregnancy. These therapeutics can cause immunosuppression and can inhibit immunologic circuits that are not only involved in disease pathophysiology but hypothetically could impact the development of the fetal immune system. Reassuringly, biologics, typically antibodies or antibody-based proteins, are introduced to the fetus via the typical route of transplacental antibody transfer, and thus only begin to be transferred in appreciable amounts in the second trimester (after organogenesis). From theoretic and empirical standpoints, biologic use during pregnancy appears well tolerated for fetal development and to not substantially affect infant immune development.

Rheumatoid arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic, systemic, autoimmune inflammatory disease that mainly affects the joints and periarticular soft tissues. In this Seminar, we provide an overview of the main aspects of rheumatoid arthritis. Epidemiology and advances in the understanding of rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis will be reviewed. We will discuss the clinical manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis, classification criteria, and the value of imaging in the diagnosis of the disease. The advent of new medications and the accumulated scientific evidence demand continuous updating regarding the diagnosis and management, including therapy, of rheumatoid arthritis. An increasing number of patients are now able to reach disease remission. This major improvement in the outcome of patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been determined by a combination of different factors (eg, early diagnosis, window of opportunity, treat-to-target strategy, advent of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and combination therapy). We will discuss the updated recommendations of the two most influential societies for rheumatology worldwide (ie, the American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, controversies (ie, the role of glucocorticoids in the management of rheumatoid arthritis and safety profile of Janus kinase inhibitors) and outstanding research questions, including precision medicine approach, prevention, and cure of rheumatoid arthritis will be highlighted.

Baricitinib in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: an international, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal, efficacy, and safety trial.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis can be refractory to some or all treatment regimens, therefore new medications are needed to treat this population. This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1/2-selective inhibitor, versus placebo in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal, efficacy, and safety trial was conducted in 75 centres in 20 countries. We enrolled patients (aged 2 to <18 years) with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (positive or negative for rheumatoid factor), extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, or juvenile psoriatic arthritis, and an inadequate response (after ≥12 weeks of treatment) or intolerance to one or more conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The trial consisted of a 2-week safety and pharmacokinetic period, a 12-week open-label lead-in period (10 weeks for the safety and pharmacokinetic subcohort), and an up to 32-week placebo-controlled double-blind withdrawal period. After age-based dosing was established in the safety and pharmacokinetic period, patients received a once-daily 4 mg adult-equivalent dose of baricitinib (tablets or suspension) in the open-label lead-in period. Patients meeting Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-American College of Rheumatology (JIA-ACR) 30 criteria (JIA-ACR30 responders) at the end of the open-label lead-in (week 12) were eligible for random assignment (1:1) to receive placebo or continue receiving baricitinib, and remained in the double-blind withdrawal period until disease flare or up to the end of the double-blind withdrawal period (week 44). Patients and any personnel interacting directly with patients or sites were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to disease flare during the double-blind withdrawal period and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population of all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of baricitinib throughout the three trial periods. For adverse events in the double-blind withdrawal period, exposure-adjusted incidence rates were calculated. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03773978, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2018 and March 3, 2021, 220 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of baricitinib (152 [69%] girls and 68 [31%] boys; median age 14·0 years [IQR 12·0-16·0]). 219 patients received baricitinib in the open-label lead-in period, of whom 163 (74%) had at least a JIA-ACR30 response at week 12 and were randomly assigned to placebo (n=81) or baricitinib (n=82) in the double-blind withdrawal period. Time to disease flare was significantly shorter with placebo versus baricitinib (hazard ratio 0·241 [95% CI 0·128-0·453], p<0·0001). Median time to flare was 27·14 weeks (95% CI 15·29-not estimable) in the placebo group, and not evaluable for patients in the baricitinib group (<50% had a flare event). Six (3%) of 220 patients had serious adverse events during the safety and pharmacokinetic period or open-label lead-in period. In the double-blind withdrawal period, serious adverse events were reported in four (5%) of 82 patients (incidence rate [IR] 9·7 [95% CI 2·7-24·9] per 100 patient-years at risk) in the baricitinib group and three (4%) of 81 (IR 10·2 [2·1-29·7]) in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent infections were reported during the safety and pharmacokinetic or open-label lead-in period in 55 (25%) of 220 patients, and during the double-blind withdrawal period in 31 (38%) of 82 (IR 102·1 [95% CI 69·3-144·9]) in the baricitinib group and 15 (19%) of 81 (IR 59·0 [33·0-97·3]) in the placebo group. Pulmonary embolism was reported as a serious adverse event in one patient (1%; IR 2·4 [95% CI 0·1-13·3]) in the baricitinib group in the double-blind withdrawal period, which was judged to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Baricitinib was efficacious with an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, and juvenile psoriatic arthritis, after inadequate response or intolerance to standard therapy. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company under licence from Incyte.

Trial of Upadacitinib and Adalimumab for Psoriatic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib is a potential treatment for psoriatic arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, in patients who have an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are unclear. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib at a dose of 15 mg or 30 mg once daily, placebo, or subcutaneous adalimumab (40 mg every other week). The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% decrease in the number of tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in at least three of five other domains) at week 12 with upadacitinib as compared with placebo. Secondary end points included comparisons of upadacitinib with adalimumab. RESULTS: A total of 1704 patients received an active drug or placebo. The percentage of patients who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was 70.6% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 78.5% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 36.2% with placebo (P<0.001 for both upadacitinib doses vs. placebo), and 65.0% with adalimumab. The difference between groups for 15-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 5.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 11.8) and for 30-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 13.5 percentage points (95% CI, 7.5 to 19.4). Both upadacitinib doses were noninferior to adalimumab for the ACR20 response at week 12; the 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. The incidence of adverse events through week 24 was 66.9% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 72.3% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 59.6% with placebo, and 64.8% with adalimumab. There were serious infections in 1.2%, 2.6%, 0.9%, and 0.7% of the patients, respectively. Hepatic disorders occurred in 9.1% of patients in the 15-mg upadacitinib group and 12.3% in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, but grade 3 increases in aminotransferase levels occurred in 2% of patients or fewer in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with psoriatic arthritis who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was significantly higher with 15-mg or 30-mg upadacitinib than with placebo. The 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. Adverse events were more frequent with upadacitinib than with placebo. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-PsA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03104400.).

Hospitalization after hydroxychloroquine initiation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and autoimmune disease.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) reduces cardiovascular events among patients with autoimmune disorders and is being evaluated as a therapeutic option for populations with high-risk cardiovascular disease. However, recent studies have raised concerns about HCQ use and cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of HCQ initiation with heart failure-related and all-cause hospitalizations among patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years with diagnosed HFpEF and autoimmune disease using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (2007-2019). Patients were required to initiate HCQ after their first HFpEF diagnosis (HCQ users) or not (HCQ nonusers). For the patients in the HCQ users group, the first HCQ prescription date was assigned as the index date. Index date for the HCQ nonuser group was assigned by prescription-time distribution matching HCQ users, by utilizing the number of days from HFpEF diagnosis to the first HCQ prescription. After 1:≥3 propensity score (PS) matching, Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations between users and nonusers. RESULTS: After PS matching, 2229 patients (592 HCQ users and 1637 HCQ nonusers) were included. After controlling for covariates, patients who received HCQ had lower risks of HF-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.82) and all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.83) compared with patients not using HCQ. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFpEF and autoimmune disease, initiation of HCQ use was associated with a decreased risk of HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations.