Search

Objectives: To update the long-term safety profile of filgotinib, a Janus kinase-1 preferential inhibitor, in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Data from seven trials were integrated (NCT01888874, NCT01894516, NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728, NCT02065700 and NCT03025308). Patients received once-daily filgotinib 100 mg or 200 mg. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs)/100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) were calculated for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Post hoc analyses assessed patients aged <65 and ≥65 years., Results: Patients (N=3691) received filgotinib for a median (maximum) of 3.8 (8.3) years (12 541 PYE). Rates of TEAEs of interest: serious infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolism were stable over time and comparable between doses. In the overall population, numerically lower EAIR (95% CI)/100 PYE of herpes zoster was observed for filgotinib 100 mg versus 200 mg (1.1 (0.8 to 1.5) vs 1.5 (1.2 to 1.8)). Incidence of serious infections, herpes zoster, MACE, malignancies and all-cause mortality was higher in patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years. In patients aged ≥65 years, EAIRs (95% CI)/100 PYE for non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) (0.4 (0.1 to 1.1) vs 1.4 (0.8 to 2.2)), malignancies excluding NMSC (1.0 (0.5 to 1.9) vs 2.0 (1.3 to 2.9)) and all-cause mortality (1.3 (0.7 to 2.2) vs 1.6 (1.0 to 2.5)) were numerically lower for filgotinib 100 mg versus 200 mg., Conclusions: In the overall population, TEAEs of interest were stable over time and similar between filgotinib 100 mg and 200 mg dose groups, except for herpes zoster. A dose-dependent relationship between malignancies and all-cause mortality was suggested in patients ≥65 years old., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GRB reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer and Sanofi; and speakers’ bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer and Sanofi. J-EG reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer; and grant/research support from BMS and Pfizer. RC reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Fresenius, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and UCB; speakers’ bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. KLW reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and UCB; and grant/research support from BMS and Pfizer. YT has received speaker fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Taiho, Taisho and Pfizer; and research grants from Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe and Taisho. EVEO is a consultant for Galapagos. VR is a former employee of, and shareholder in, Galapagos. PVH is a consultant for AOP Health, Aspen and Galapagos; and a previous employee of Janssen, MSD and Schering-Plough. KVB is an employee of, and shareholder in, Galapagos. TT reports consultancy fees from AbbVie GK, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead, Janssen Pharma K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe and Pfizer Japan; speakers’ bureau fees from AbbVie GK, AYUMI, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead, Janssen Pharma K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pfizer Japan and Sanofi K.K.; and research/grant support from AbbVie GK, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, AYUMI, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nippon Kayaku and UCB Japan. RW acted as an adviser and speaker for Celltrion, Galapagos and Gilead. DA reports consultancy fees, speakers’ bureau fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

Objectives: To investigate if patients with early rheumatoid arthritis responding insufficiently to initial methotrexate (MTX) and bridging glucocorticoids (GCs) could benefit from early but temporary etanercept introduction as a second remission-induction attempt., Methods: CareRA2020 (NCT03649061) was a 2-year, open-label, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Treatment-naïve patients started MTX and GC bridging (COBRA-Slim: CS). Within a time window from week (W) 8 until W32, early insufficient responders (28-joint Disease Activity Score - C-reactive Protein (DAS28-CRP) >3.2 between W8 and W32 or ≥2.6 at W32) were randomised to a Standard-CS strategy (adding leflunomide first) or Bio-induction-CS strategy (adding etanercept for 24 weeks). Additional treatment adaptations followed the treat-to-target principle. Longitudinal disease activity (DAS28-CRP) over 104 weeks (primary outcome), achievement of DAS28-CRP <2.6 28 weeks after randomisation, and biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use at W104 were compared between randomisation groups., Results: Following CS treatment, 142 patients were early responders; 55 early insufficient responders received Standard-CS and 55 Bio-induction-CS. Superiority of Bio-induction-CS over Standard-CS could not be demonstrated (ß=-0.204, (95% CI -0.486 to 0.078), p=0.157) for the primary outcome. More patients on Bio-induction-CS achieved DAS28-CRP <2.6 at 28 weeks after randomisation (59% (95% CI 44% to 72%) vs 44% (95% CI 31% to 59%) in Standard-CS) and they were treated less frequently with b/tsDMARDs at W104 (19/55, 35%) compared with Standard-CS (29/55, 53%)., Conclusion: Half of the patients responded well to initial COBRA-Slim induction therapy. In early insufficient responders, adding etanercept for 6 months did not improve disease control over 104 weeks versus adding leflunomide first. However, temporary introduction of etanercept resulted in improved disease control early after randomisation and less patients on b/tsDMARDs at W104., Trial Registration Number: NCT03649061., Ctr Pilot Approval Belgium: S59474, EudraCT number: 2017-004054-41., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RJ received consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, AbbVie; speakers fee from Novartis; support for meeting/travel from Fresenius Kabi; and participation on advisory board from AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis and Fresenius Kabi. KT received consulting fees and payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Otsuka, Celltrion, Galapagos, Viatris, UCB and Sandoz. JV received support for meeting/travel from UCB and Novartis. SA received support for meeting/travel from Eli Lilly, payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, and was member of Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) expert panel. AD received consulting fees from Amgen, support for meeting/travel from Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Sanofi and UCB; participation on data safety monitoring board/advisory board from Agmen. MD reported a grant from Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), and support for meeting/travel from AbbVie, Novartis, Galapagos and UCB. EDM reported a grant from Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). RW received consulting fees from Galapagos, and payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Galapagos and Celltrion. PV received institution grants from Pfizer, Galapagos; consulting fees from Galapagos, Sidekick Health, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim; payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, Galapagos and Roularta; support for meeting/travel from AbbVie; participation on data safety monitoring board/advisory board from Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, AbbVie, Celltrion and vice president of the Royal Belgian Society for Rheumatology. The remaining authors declared no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by intermittent flares of disease activity with a significant impact on patients' lives. However, distinguishing flare from daily symptom variation may be approached differently by patients and healthcare providers, potentially hampering shared decision-making when treating RA., Objectives: To provide a comprehensive overview of RA flare definitions reported in the published literature, and to compare these with patients' perceptions of the flare concept according to qualitative evidence., Methods: A systematic search was conducted on August 30th, 2022, and updated on September 30th, 2023, for both quantitative and qualitative studies reporting "flare" or related terms in the context of RA. We searched the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Definitions of RA flare reported in quantitative studies were summarized descriptively. In parallel, a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies was performed to outline patients' views on the concept of flare, and to compare these with the currently used definitions., Results: Among 32,864 potentially eligible records, 304 studies were included, 5 of which used qualitative/mixed methods to study patients' perceptions of flare. Remarkably, 62 different definitions for RA flare were reported, with many studies reporting more than one. The most commonly used definitions (54 %) were based on disease activity indices, with DAS28-based definitions the most widely applied (84 %). For each of the disease activity indices, several different cutoffs to define flares were used. Various definitions based on physician report were applied in 24 % of cases, while patient-reported criteria represented only 15 % of the applied definitions. Thematic synthesis of the qualitative/mixed-methods studies highlighted the multidimensional impact of flares on patients' lives, resulting in five sequential overarching themes: "Living with RA: a balancing act", "Flare: a disturbance of this balance", "The biopsychosocial impact of flares", "Self-management: the first line of defense", and "Medical help: the last resort". In turn, these five themes were underpinned by a central theme of "Uncertainty and variability"., Conclusion: We found a striking heterogeneity regarding the conceptualization and measurement of RA flare in the published literature. Although qualitative evidence highlighted the considerable impact of flares on patients' wellbeing, the majority of reported flare definitions were not based on patient report. There is a need to bridge this gap by aligning patients' and healthcare professionals' views on what distinguishes a flare from acceptable symptom variability when living with RA., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The recommended dose of a rituximab course for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) consists of two infusions of 1000 mg with a 2-week interval. Evidence is growing that a lower dose could be as effective. We aimed to investigate patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab., Methods: Patients with RA treated with rituximab, and rheumatologists were invited for a qualitative study via individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited based on purposive sampling to ensure diversity. Interviews were analysed according to the principles of grounded theory and the constant comparative method., Results: Sixteen patients and 13 rheumatologists were interviewed. Patients and rheumatologists perceived the benefits of rituximab dose reduction for reasons of safety and societal costs. Furthermore, available evidence for the effectiveness of lower doses was mentioned as an argument in favour, in addition to the possibility to tailor the dose based on the patients' clinical manifestations. However, patients and rheumatologists had concerns about the potential loss of effectiveness and quality of life. Moreover, some rheumatologists felt uncomfortable with dose reduction due to insufficient experience with rituximab in general. Patients and rheumatologists emphasised the importance of shared decision-making, underscoring the pivotal role of physicians in this process by explaining the reasoning behind dose reduction., Conclusion: Although some concerns on effectiveness were perceived, both patients and rheumatologists saw potential benefits of dose reduction in terms of safety, societal costs, and application of a personalised approach. As a result, most rheumatologists and patients showed a willingness to consider dose reduction strategies., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc)., Methods: A task force comprising 7 rheumatologists, 15 other healthcare professionals and 3 patients was established. Following a systematic literature review performed to inform the recommendations, statements were formulated, discussed during online meetings and graded based on risk of bias assessment, level of evidence (LoE) and strength of recommendation (SoR; scale A-D, A comprising consistent LoE 1 studies, D comprising LoE 4 or inconsistent studies), following the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology standard operating procedure. Level of agreement (LoA; scale 0-10, 0 denoting complete disagreement, 10 denoting complete agreement) was determined for each statement through online voting., Results: Four overarching principles and 12 recommendations were developed. These concerned common and disease-specific aspects of non-pharmacological management. SoR ranged from A to D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and recommendations ranged from 8.4 to 9.7. Briefly, non-pharmacological management of SLE and SSc should be tailored, person-centred and participatory. It is not intended to preclude but rather complement pharmacotherapy. Patients should be offered education and support for physical exercise, smoking cessation and avoidance of cold exposure. Photoprotection and psychosocial interventions are important for SLE patients, while mouth and hand exercises are important in SSc., Conclusions: The recommendations will guide healthcare professionals and patients towards a holistic and personalised management of SLE and SSc. Research and educational agendas were developed to address needs towards a higher evidence level, enhancement of clinician-patient communication and improved outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Elli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Otsuka, and Roche. LA has received research funding and/or consultancies from Alexion, Alpine, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Kezar, Elli Lilly and Company, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugaï, Sêmeia, and Union Chimique Belge (UCB). OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from and/or has served as a speaker for 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, 4P Science, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi, and Topadur. AK has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Swiss Nursing Science Foundation, Swiss League Against Rheumatism, and University of Basel. MN reports research grants from BMS, Vifor Pharma and Sanofi paid to his institution, speaking fees from CCIS The Conference Company and Eli Lilly, all outside the submitted work. JEV reports speaker fees from Eli Lilly, and Galapagos. RW has received honoraria from Galapagos, Celltrion, Gilead Sciences, and Union Chimique Belge (UCB). The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This post hoc analysis of the FINCH 1-3 (NCT02889796, NCT02873936 and NCT02886728) studies assessed specific effects of filgotinib on pain control and their relationship with other aspects of efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Assessments included: residual pain responses of ≤10 and ≤20 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS); the proportion of patients who achieved VAS pain responses in addition to remission or low disease activity by Disease Activity Score-28 with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) criteria., Results: Across studies, filgotinib reduced pain from week 2, with responses sustained throughout the studies. In FINCH 1, at week 24, 35.8%, 25.0%, 24.6% and 11.6% of patients in the filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, adalimumab and placebo arms (each plus methotrexate) achieved VAS pain ≤20 mm in addition to DAS28-CRP remission; 26.3%, 17.9%, 17.2% and 7.6% achieved VAS pain ≤10 mm in addition to DAS28-CRP remission. A similar pattern was seen for CDAI remission. Time during which VAS pain was ≤10 or ≤20 mm was longest with filgotinib 200 mg and comparable between adalimumab and filgotinib 100 mg. Similar findings were reported for filgotinib in FINCH 2 and 3., Conclusion: In all RA populations studied, pain improvements occurred from week 2 and were sustained over time. In FINCH 1, filgotinib 100 mg provided similar pain amelioration to adalimumab, whereas filgotinib 200 mg resulted in greater pain improvement and higher proportion of patients with residual pain ≤10 or ≤20 mm and meeting DAS28-CRP remission criteria., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PCT reports speaker fees from AbbVie; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB Pharma; and grant/research support from Galapagos. AK reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. PN reports speaker fees, consultancy fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer. JP has nothing to disclose. GP reports speaker fees from AbbVie, Boehringer, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Boehringer, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer and Roche; and has been a paid instructor for Lilly and Roche. BF reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB and Viatris and grant/research support from AbbVie, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. RA reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB and Viatris. KH is an employee of, and a shareholder in, Gilead. SR is a former employee of Gilead. DdV and CW are employees of, and shareholders in, Galapagos. P-JS is a former employee of Galapagos. RW reports speaker fees and consultancy fees from Celltrion, Galapagos and Gilead., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Several retreatment strategies exist for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In some countries, reimbursement criteria require a loss of disease control for rituximab retreatment. Understanding the patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions regarding this retreatment strategy would be informative in identifying the optimal treatment administration schedule., Objectives: This study aimed to uncover patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions regarding retreatment strategies of rituximab., Design: Qualitative study - semi-structured interviews., Methods: Patients with RA, treated with rituximab, and rheumatologists were invited to participate in a qualitative study consisting of individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed according to the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven., Results: A total of 16 patients and 13 rheumatologists were interviewed. Benefits (e.g. decreased risk of overtreatment, cost savings and long-lasting effectiveness of rituximab) and barriers (e.g. fluctuating disease activity, slow mode of action and increased glucocorticoid use) of on-flare retreatment were identified. To effectively treat on-flare, flares must first be identified timely. Both stakeholder groups acknowledged that patients are capable of recognizing flares. However, the patient's ability to discriminate between inflammatory and other types of pain was perceived as difficult. Furthermore, patients and rheumatologists stressed that patients must timely seek professional help in case of a flare, followed by a swift response from the rheumatologists. Remarkably, retreatment was approached in various ways among rheumatologists, and not always adhering strictly to the on-flare reimbursement criteria., Conclusion: This study revealed that both stakeholder groups perceived the heterogeneity in recognition of and reaction to a flare as important in influencing the effectiveness of the on-flare retreatment strategy. Moreover, this study identified the benefits and barriers of treating on-flare, which could be informative for daily practice decisions., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2024.)