Search

Objective: Preliminary evidence suggests that vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) may have some benefit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, prior studies have been small and/or uncontrolled; this study aimed to address that gap. Methods: This randomized, double‐blind, sham‐controlled trial enrolled patients aged 18 to 75 years with active RA who had failed conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and were naïve to biologic and/or targeted synthetic DMARDs. All patients received an auricular vagus nerve stimulator and were randomized 1:1 to active stimulation or sham. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included mean changes in disease activity score of 28 joints with C‐reactive protein (DAS28‐CRP) and Health Assessment Questionnaire‐Disability Index (HAQ‐DI). Results: A total of 113 patients (mean age 54 years; 82% female) enrolled, and 101 patients (89.4%) completed week 12. ACR20 response at week 12 was 25.0% for active stimulation versus 26.9% for sham (difference vs. sham, −1.9; 95% CI, −18.8, 14.9, P = 0.823). The least square mean ± SE change in DAS28‐CRP was −0.95 ± 0.16 for active stimulation and −0.66 ± 0.16 for sham (P = 0.201); in HAQ‐DI it was −0.19 ± 0.06 for active stimulation and −0.02 ± 0.06 for sham (P = 0.044). Adverse events occurred in 17 patients (15%); all were mild or moderate. Conclusion: Auricular VNS did not meaningfully improve RA disease activity. If VNS with other modalities is pursued in the future for the treatment of RA, larger, controlled studies will be needed to understand its utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate changes in bone turnover and bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving glucocorticoids, after discontinuation of denosumab for 12 months. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase II study of RA patients. Patients received placebo, denosumab 60 mg, or denosumab 180 mg every 6 months for 12 months and were followed up for an additional 12 months after discontinuation, during which no bone loss prevention therapy was instituted. Changes from baseline in serum C‐terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX), serum procollagen type I N‐terminal propeptide (PINP), and lumbar spine and total hip BMD were evaluated. Results: In this post hoc analysis of patients treated with glucocorticoids at study baseline (n = 82), levels of CTX and PINP decreased significantly from baseline in both denosumab groups. Following denosumab discontinuation, CTX returned to baseline and was not significantly different from the placebo group 6 and 12 months after discontinuation. Median percentage changes from baseline PINP in those treated with denosumab 60 mg were −0.16% and 15.3% at 6 and 12 months, respectively, after discontinuation (P = 0.062 and P = 0.017, versus placebo); corresponding changes with denosumab 180 mg were 9.0% and 75.8%, respectively (P = 0.018 and P = 0.002 versus placebo). Compared to placebo, lumbar spine and total hip BMD increased in patients receiving denosumab and returned to baseline 12 months after discontinuation. No osteoporotic fractures were reported during treatment or in the off‐treatment period. Conclusion: In this analysis of short‐term denosumab use in RA patients receiving glucocorticoids, denosumab discontinuation resulted in a gradual increase in bone turnover, which was associated with a return to baseline lumbar spine and total hip BMD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by email and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1–9‐point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7–9, 4–6, and 1–3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. Results: Draft guidance statements approved by the task force have been combined to form final guidance. Conclusion: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate fenebrutinib, an oral and highly selective noncovalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Patients with RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) (cohort 1; n = 480) were randomized to receive fenebrutinib (50 mg once daily, 150 mg once daily, or 200 mg twice daily), adalimumab (40 mg every other week), or placebo. Patients with RA and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (cohort 2; n = 98) received fenebrutinib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Both cohorts continued MTX therapy. Results: In cohort 1, the percentages of patients in whom American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (ACR50) was achieved at week 12 were similar in the fenebrutinib 50 mg once daily and placebo groups, and were higher in the fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily group (28%) and 200 mg twice daily group (35%) than in the placebo group (15%) (P = 0.016 and P = 0.0003, respectively). Fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily and adalimumab (36%) were comparable (P = 0.81). In cohort 2, ACR50 was achieved in more patients receiving fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (25%) than placebo (12%) (P = 0.072). The most common adverse events in the fenebrutinib groups included nausea, headache, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infections. Fenebrutinib had significant effects on myeloid and B cell biomarkers (CCL4 and rheumatoid factor). Fenebrutinib and adalimumab caused overlapping as well as distinct changes in B cell and myeloid biomarkers. Conclusion: Fenebrutinib demonstrates efficacy comparable to adalimumab in patients with an inadequate response to MTX, and safety consistent with existing immunomodulatory therapies for RA. These data support targeting both B and myeloid cells via this novel mechanism for potential efficacy in the treatment of RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by e‐mail and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1–9‐point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7–9, 4–6, and 1–3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. Results: To date, the task force has approved 80 guidance statements: 36 with moderate and 44 with high consensus. These were combined, resulting in 27 final guidance statements. Conclusion: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included 2 rounds of asynchronous anonymous voting by e‐mail and 3 webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1–9‐point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7–9, 4–6, and 1–3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. Results: The task force approved 77 initial guidance statements: 36 with moderate and 41 with high consensus. These were combined, resulting in 25 final guidance statements. Conclusion: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The phase III, 24‐month, placebo‐controlled Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis (ORAL) Scan trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy, including inhibition of structural progression, and safety of tofacitinib in patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Month 24 data from the completed study are reported here. Methods: Patients were randomized 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, switched to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, with stable background MTX. Patients receiving placebo switched to tofacitinib at month 3 (nonresponders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Clinical efficacy, structural progression, and treatment‐emergent adverse events were evaluated. Analyses were performed on the full analysis set with observed data or nonresponder imputation with no advancement penalty for clinical efficacy, and imputation by linear extrapolation for structural progression. Results: Overall, 797 patients were treated; 539 (67.6%) completed 24 months of treatment. Responses according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70; the proportion of patients in whom remission or low disease activity was achieved according to the 4‐variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Clinical Disease Activity Index, or Simplified Disease Activity Index; Boolean remission; and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores were maintained from month 12 to 24 and were similar between tofacitinib dosages. Limited structural damage was observed at months 12 and 24. Safety events were similar in type and frequency for both tofacitinib dosages, and were consistent with those previously reported. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that clinical and radiographic treatment effects are sustained in months 12–24 in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily plus MTX. The safety profile is consistent with that of other tofacitinib studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on biologic therapy. Topics discussed include immunogenicity and scientific aspects of manufacturing; extrapolation of indications, switching, and substitution and interchangeability; and transitioning and changing to biosimilar. Also being discussed is the economics of biosimilars and patient access.

Objective: FX006 is a novel, microsphere‐based, extended‐release formulation of triamcinolone acetonide for intraarticular (IA) injection designed to maintain treatment concentration in the joint and provide prolonged analgesic benefits in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. This study was undertaken to compare the analgesic benefits of 2 FX006 doses with saline placebo injection. Methods: In this phase IIb study, participants with knee OA (Kellgren/Lawrence grade 2–3) and average daily pain (ADP) intensity ≥5 to ≤9 (on a 0–10 Numerical Rating Scale) were randomized (1:1:1) to receive single IA injections of FX006 32 mg (n = 104) or 16 mg (n = 102) or saline placebo (n = 100). The primary end point was the least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to week 12 in weekly mean ADP intensity scores for FX006 32 mg versus saline placebo. Results: The primary end point was not met (LSM change at week 12 −3.1 with FX006 32 mg versus −2.5 with saline placebo; LSM difference [95% confidence interval] −0.58 [−1.22, 0.07]) (P = 0.08). However, improvements in ADP intensity were significantly greater with FX006 32 mg than saline placebo at weeks 1–11 and week 13. Improvements in ADP intensity were significantly greater with FX006 16 mg versus saline placebo at weeks 1–9. A dose‐response effect in duration of maximal analgesic effect was evident (13 weeks with 32 mg versus 9 weeks with 16 mg), with FX006 32 mg providing increased therapeutic benefit relative to FX006 16 mg. All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion: Although the primary end point was not met, our findings indicate a prolonged reduction in symptoms with FX006 with an evident dose response and a safety profile similar to saline placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the rate of infection and all-cause mortality across tofacitinib phase II, phase III, and long-term extension (LTE) studies in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Pooled data from studies of tofacitinib in patients with RA were analyzed. In these studies, tofacitinib was administered as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The cutoff date for inclusion of data was April 19, 2012. Results Across phase II, phase III, and LTE studies, 4,789 patients received tofacitinib (8,460 patient-years of exposure). The overall rate of serious infection was 3.09 events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.73-3.49), and rates were stable over time. A Cox proportional hazards model showed that age, corticosteroid dose, diabetes, and tofacitinib dose were independently linked to the risk of serious infection. Lymphocyte counts of <0.5 × 103/mm3 were rare but were associated with an increased risk of treated and/or serious infection. Overall, all-cause mortality rates were 0.30 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0.20-0.44). Conclusion The overall risk of infection (including serious infection) and mortality rates in RA patients treated with tofacitinib appear to be similar to those observed in RA patients treated with biologic agents. The rates of serious infection were stable over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]