Search

Objectives: Adults with RA are being switched from etanercept originator to biosimilar in non-medical/cost-saving switching. This analysis aims to investigate outcomes in these patients, including (i) drug survival and (ii) disease activity at 6 months and 12 months, compared with those who remain on the originator., Methods: Using BSRBR-RA, those who switched directly from etanercept originator to biosimilar were identified and matched to patients receiving the originator, based on gender, age, disease duration and originator start year. Drug survival was calculated; Cox-proportional hazard models assessed differences in drug persistence between those who switched vs remaining on originator. Change in DAS28 after 6 months and 12 months was compared between cohorts. Multiple imputation was used., Results: A total of 1024 adults with RA switching from etanercept originator to biosimilar were included, with a matched cohort of patients remaining on the originator. Patients who switched onto a biosimilar product were no more likely to discontinue etanercept treatment vs those who remained on the originator; hazard ratio 1.06 (95%CI 0.89-1.26), with 65% of patients remaining on treatment at three years. Ninety-five (9%) patients switched back to the originator within the first year. After 6 months and 12 months, biosimilar patients were no more likely to have a worsening of DAS28 (>0.6 units) compared with those who remained on the originator., Conclusions: This is the largest matched comparative effectiveness analysis showing patients switching from etanercept originator to biosimilar appearing to do just as well with regard to disease activity and drug persistence compared with those who remained on the originator. These data will be reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding non-medical switching., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: Etanercept biosimilars show comparable efficacy to their originators among biologic-naïve patients with RA in randomized controlled trials. Nationwide guidelines have obligated prescribing of etanercept biosimilars from 2016, resulting in significant cost savings. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of etanercept originator vs etanercept biosimilar amongst biologic-naïve RA patients treated in routine clinical practice in the UK., Methods: Biologic-naïve RA patients starting etanercept in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Rhematoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) cohort study from 2010 were included. Data collected at start of therapy includes patient demographics and disease activity. Follow-up data includes changes in disease activity and anti-rheumatic therapy. Six- and 12-month primary outcomes include DAS for 28-joints (DAS28) remission, EULAR response and minimal clinically important difference in function. Etanercept drug survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression, including reasons for treatment withdrawal. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. Propensity-decile adjustment was used to account for confounding by indication., Results: A total of 1806 biologic-naïve RA patients started etanercept: 1009 originator, 797 biosimilar. At 6 and 12 months, the proportion of patients achieving DAS28 remission and EULAR response were similar between treatments. During follow-up, 19% of originator patients switched onto etanercept biosimilar. Patients were censored at time of switch. Patients on originator were no more likely to stop therapy vs biosimilar; 71% of originator and 76% of biosimilar patients remained on therapy at 1 year., Conclusions: In one of the largest analyses of patients with RA, biologic-naïve RA patients treated with etanercept originator showed similar outcomes vs biosimilar using real-world data. Drug survival, and disease activity after 6 and 12 months of therapy, was similar between cohorts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD)., Methods: An international Task Force (TF) (22 members/15 countries) formulated recommendations, supported by systematic literature review findings. Level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned for each recommendation. Level of agreement was provided anonymously by each TF member., Results: Four overarching principles (OAP) and eight recommendations were developed. The OAPs highlight the need for infections to be discussed with patients and with other medical specialties, in accordance with national regulations. In addition to biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for which screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) should be performed, screening could be considered also before conventional synthetic DMARDs, glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. Interferon gamma release assay should be preferred over tuberculin skin test, where available. Hepatitis B (HBV) antiviral treatment should be guided by HBV status defined prior to starting antirheumatic drugs. All patients positive for hepatitis-C-RNA should be referred for antiviral treatment. Also, patients who are non-immune to varicella zoster virus should be informed about the availability of postexposure prophylaxis should they have contact with this pathogen. Prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii seems to be beneficial in patients treated with daily doses >15-30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent for >2-4 weeks., Conclusions: These recommendations provide guidance on the screening and prevention of chronic and opportunistic infections. Their adoption in clinical practice is recommended to standardise and optimise care to reduce the burden of opportunistic infections in people living with AIIRD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GEF: Consulting fees/honoraria: Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, UCB, AENorasis, Janssen, Pharmaserv-Lilly. EN: speaker fees/honoraria: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Fresenius. Research funding: Pfizer, Lilly. MD: none SZ: consulting fees: UCBDC: None. LA: has received consulting fees and/or research funding from Astra-Zeneca, GSK, Pfizer. FA: none. GMNB: has received consulting fees/honoraria as speaker from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Moderna unrelated to this work. JWJB: none PB: none CAC: none SG-D: none MCK: none KL: has received consulting/speaker fees from Pfizer, Viatris, Celltrion outside of the submitted work. ML: none. JM: none GN: consulting fees/honoraria as speaker from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Miltenyi Biotech, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche unrelated to this work. EP: consulting fees/honoraria as speaker from Bayer, Menarini, Grifols, Zambon, Pfizer, Chiesi, Teva, Shire, Shionogi, Insmed, Boehringer-Ingelheim, unrelated to this work. JvR: none MS: consulting fees: BMS, Boehringer-Ingheleim, Eli Lilly, Celltrion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Cilag. AS: has received consulting fees/honoraria as speaker from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche unrelated to this workAdT: none JG: speaker fees/honoraria: Abbvie, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Research funding: Abbvie, Astrazeneca, Galapagos, Gilead, Gritstone, Janssen, Moderna, Novovax, PfizerKH: honoraria from Abbvie; grant income from Pfizer and BMS., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To update the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)., Methods: Following the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews were conducted on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment of axSpA. In a task force meeting, the evidence was presented, discussed, and overarching principles and recommendations were updated, followed by voting., Results: Five overarching principles and 15 recommendations with a focus on personalised medicine were agreed: eight remained unchanged from the previous recommendations; three with minor edits on nomenclature; two with relevant updates (#9, 12); two newly formulated (#10, 11). The first five recommendations focus on treatment target and monitoring, non-pharmacological management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice pharmacological treatment. Recommendations 6-8 deal with analgesics and discourage long-term glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for pure axial involvement. Recommendation 9 describes the indication of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs, that is, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i)) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs, ie, Janus kinase inhibitors) for patients who have Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score ≥2.1 and failed ≥2 NSAIDs and also have either elevated C reactive protein, MRI inflammation of sacroiliac joints or radiographic sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start a TNFi or IL-17i. Recommendation 10 addresses extramusculoskeletal manifestations with TNF monoclonal antibodies preferred for recurrent uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease, and IL-17i for significant psoriasis. Treatment failure should prompt re-evaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities (#11). If active axSpA is confirmed, switching to another b/tsDMARD is recommended (#12). Tapering, rather than immediate discontinuation of a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (#13). The last recommendations (#14, 15) deal with surgery and spinal fractures., Conclusions: The 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR received research grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, UCB and Sanofi. EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly, and holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly. AS has received speaker/consulting fees from UCB and Novartis. AO has nothing to declare. CW has nothing to declare. XB received consulting fees and research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB. XB is an editorial board member of Annals of Rheumatic Diseases. RBML received consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Jansen, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and is director of Rheumatology Consultancy. FEVdB received consulting and/or speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. BB has nothing to declare. AB has nothing to declare. PC received consulting/speaker’s fees from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Galapagos, Fresenius Kabi, Biogen, MSD, UCB and Novartis. AC received honoraria for lectures from AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis. FAvG received grants from Stichting ASAS, and consulting/speaker’s fees from Novartis, UCB, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb and Celgene. PG received speaker’s fees from AbbVie. LG received consulting fees and research grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. JH has received speaker honoraria and participated in advisory boards for AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis and Janssen. MdH has nothing to declare. MH has received speaker’s fees from Novartis. UK has received grant and research support and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Gilead, Grünenthal, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. CL-M has received speaker/consulting fees from UCB, Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD and AbbVie. PMM has received honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, and is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). HM-O received grants from Janssen, Novartis and UCB, and consultancy/speaker's fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. AM received research grants from UCB and consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer and UCB. VN-C received grants/honoraria from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. MJN received grant from Novartis and consultancy/speaker's fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer. FMP-S received research grants from AbbVie, Janssen, and Novartis, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bial, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharma Kern, UCB and Tecnimed. DP received research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, and speaker's fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Medscape, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer and UCB. FP reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, Lilly and UCB, and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer and Roche. MR received consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. MT has nothing to declare. SSZ has received consulting fees from UCB. NZ received research grants from AbbVie, Celgene, NewBridge and Pfizer; consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, NewBridge and Roche; and speaker's fees from AbbVie, Apotex, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Pharmaline, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. DvdH received consulting fees from AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, and is director of Imaging Rheumatology., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Whether patients with RA benefit from repeated trials of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) after three or more attempts is unknown. We aimed to describe treatment outcomes in each line of b/tsDMARD therapy., Methods: Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA from 2001 to 2020, change to a new b/tsDMARD (except biosimilar switches) was defined as a new line of therapy. Treatment outcomes were compared across lines of therapy, including DAS28 remission (≤2.6), low disease activity (LDA, ≤3.2) at 6 months and median time to drug discontinuation. Multiple imputation was used for missing data., Results: A total of 22 934 individuals starting a first b/tsDMARD were included (mean age 56 years, 76% female), among whom 10 823 commenced a second-line drug, 5056 third, 2128 fourth, 767 fifth and 292 sixth. Most (71%) had sufficient data for DAS28-derived outcome analyses. TNF inhibitors were the most common first-line drug, but choice of subsequent-line drugs changed over time. Seventeen percent achieved DAS28 remission following first-line, 13% second and 8-13% with third through sixth. LDA was achieved in 29% of first-line, 23% second, 17-22% through to the sixth. Patients stayed on first-line therapy for a median of 2.6 years, ranging from 1.0-1.4 years for lines two to six., Conclusion: Many patients will eventually benefit after repeated trials of b/tsDMARD. Further research to improve treatment selection are needed to prevent prolonged trial and error approaches in some patients., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between individual-level and country-level socio-economic (SE) factors and health outcomes across SpA phenotypes., Methods: Patients with axial SpA (axSpA), peripheral SpA (pSpA) or PsA from the ASAS-perSpA study (in 23 countries) were included. The effect of individual-level (age, gender, education and marital status) and country-level [e.g. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)] SE factors on health outcomes [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) ≥ 2.1, ASDAS, BASFI, fatigue and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS-HI)] was assessed in mixed-effects models adjusted for potential confounders. Interactions between SE factors and disease phenotype were tested. A mediation analysis was conducted to explore whether the impact of country-level SE factors on ASDAS was mediated through biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARD uptake., Results: In total, 4185 patients (61% males, mean age 45) were included (65% axSpA, 25% PsA, 10% pSpA). Female gender [β= 0.14 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.23)], lower educational level [β = 0.35 (0.25, 0.45)) and single marital status [β = 0.09 (0.01, 0.17)] were associated with higher ASDAS. Living in lower GDP countries was also associated with higher ASDAS [β = 0.39 (0.16, 0.63)], and 7% of this association was mediated by b/tsDMARD uptake. Higher BASFI was similarly associated with female gender, lower education and living alone, without the effect of country-level SE factors. Female gender and lower educational level were associated with worse ASAS-HI, while more fatigue was associated with female gender and higher country-level SE factors [lower GDP, β = -0.46 (-0.89 to -0.04)]. No differences across disease phenotypes were found., Conclusions: Our study shows country-driven variations in health outcomes in SpA, independently influenced by individual-level and country-level SE factors and without differences across disease phenotypes., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Few data exist on the association between increased BMI and response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) in RA. We aimed to explore the association between increased (overweight or obese) BMI on csDMARD prescribing, MTX dose and disease activity over 12 months., Methods: Participants in an international RA database were stratified into early (<1 year post-diagnosis) and established RA. EULAR response, 28-joint DAS (DAS28) remission and treatments were recorded at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Increased BMI was explored in early and established RA as predictors of good EULAR response, DAS28 remission, number of csDMARDs and MTX dose, using logistic and linear regression., Results: Data from 1313 patients, 44.3% with early RA, were examined. In early RA, increased BMI was not significantly associated with remission. In established RA, obese patients on monotherapy were significantly less likely to achieve good EULAR response or DAS28 remission at 6 months and more likely to be treated with combination csDMARDs compared with normal BMI. In patients taking MTX, overweight and obese patients with early and established RA were exposed to higher MTX doses (mono- and combination therapy), with a mean dose of 20 mg/week, compared with 15 mg/week in those of normal BMI., Conclusion: We observed that compared with patients with normal BMI, overweight and obese individuals experienced more intensive csDMARD exposures. Similar response rates were observed in early RA but increased BMI was associated with reduced response in established RA. Optimization of targeted RA treatment remains important, particularly in those with increased BMI where response in established disease may be attenuated., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To describe the baseline characteristics, biologic DMARD (bDMARD) response and drug survival of axial SpA (axSpA) patients in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) according to radiographic status., Methods: The BSRBR-AS is a national prospective cohort including axSpA participants classified according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria. In this analysis, baseline data of patients starting bDMARDs were compared. Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scores (ASDASs) for low disease status, clinically important improvement (CII) and major improvement (MI) at 1 year were used to assess treatment response. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed after adjusting for clinically relevant confounders., Results: A total of 1145 axSpA patients were included. Higher male prevalence, older age and longer disease duration were seen in the radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) subgroup. Based on a complete case analysis (290 patients), two-thirds of patients achieved an ASDAS low disease state at 1 year regardless of radiographic status [non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) 64.2% vs r-axSpA 66.1]. No statistically significant differences were seen between the subgroups in attaining ASDAS CII (nr-axSpA 50.7% vs r-axSpA 44.7%) or MI (nr-axSpA 20% vs r-axSpA 18.7%). Drug survival probability curves were similar for both subgroups and the hazard ratio for nr-axSpA/axSpA was 0.94 (95% CI 0.69, 1.28) when adjusted for sex, age, baseline ASDAS with CRP, smoking status, disease duration, HLA-B27 and prescribed biologic., Conclusions: Although there appeared to be some differences in the baseline characteristics when exploring this cohort according to radiographic status, which are likely related to the natural history of the disease, the level of biologic response and drug survival was comparable between nr-axSpA and r-axSpA., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: Comorbidities influence disease assessment in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but their association with response to TNF inhibitors (TNFi) is unclear. We examined associations between comorbidity history at TNFi initiation and: (i) change in disease indices over time; (ii) binary response definitions; and (iii) time to treatment discontinuation., Methods: We studied participants starting their first TNFi from a national axSpA register. Comorbidity categories were created from 14 physician-diagnosed conditions and compared against: change in disease indices over time using linear mixed effects models; BASDAI50/2 (50% or 2-unit reduction) and BASDAI < 4 at 6 months using logistic models; and time to treatment discontinuation using Cox models. Models were adjusted for age, gender, BMI, deprivation and education., Results: In total, 994 were eligible for analysis (68% male, mean age 45 years); 21% had one comorbidity and 11% had ≥2. Baseline disease severity was higher in those with comorbidities across all indices, but absolute improvement over time was comparable for BASDAI and spinal pain. Participants with ≥2 comorbidities had smaller absolute improvement in BASFI and quality of life. This group also had numerically reduced odds of achieving BASDAI50/2 [odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.45] and BASDAI < 4 (OR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.32, 1.04). Treatment discontinuation was increased in those with two comorbidities [hazard ratio (HR) 1.32; 95% CI: 0.88, 2.00] and ≥3 comorbidities (HR 2.18; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.93) compared with none., Conclusions: Participants with multiple comorbidities had poorer treatment outcomes, particularly increased treatment discontinuation and poorer improvements in function and quality of life. These results inform clinicians and educate patients about response to the first TNFi given comorbidity burden., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Introduction: Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Whilst extremely efficacious, the original TNFi also carried a high acquisition cost that limited their use. 'Biosimilar' TNFi's, developed on expiry of the patents for the biooriginators, have comparable efficacy and safety, are less expensive and provide the potential to improve access to these effective therapies in a more cost-effective manner., Areas Covered: The background and development of TNFis, their biosimilars and follow on 'copycat' drugs are discussed, together with their use in both developed and developing countries, focusing on the potential to enhance access to effective targeted therapies., Expert Opinion: Bridging the economic gap to facilitate universal access to anti-TNF biosimilars has been largely unsuccessful, driving the development of copycat mimics in developing countries. Meanwhile, the more recent introduction of targeted synthetic disease-modifying drugs has provided cheaper, equally effective treatments for rheumatic diseases that are conveniently delivered by mouth. We review the TNF biosimilars in rheumatic diseases, their role in a rapidly evolving treatment landscape, and speculate about the future for this iconic therapeutic class.

Approximately one-third of patients on biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive them as monotherapy. There are few head-to-head randomised control trials comparing biologics as monotherapy. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and persistence of multimodal biologic agents as monotherapy in biologic naïve patients with RA in the real-world setting. A multicentre retrospective observational study was carried out comparing TNF inhibitors (TNFi), IL6 receptor inhibitor (IL6Ri) and CTLA-4 inhibitor (CTLA-4i) monotherapy in biologic naïve RA patients. The primary study outcome was DAS28 score at 6, 12, and 18 months. 126 patients were enrolled; 98 patients (78%) were taking TNFi, 19 patients (15%) IL6Ri and 10 (8%) CTLA-4i with similar baseline characteristics of sex and age across groups. Patients in the CTLA-4i group were more often seropositive and had greater numbers of comorbidities. At 6 and 12 months, patients in the IL6Ri group had a lower DAS28 score compared to TNFi monotherapy. Those on CTLA-4i monotherapy also had a lower DAS28 score at 6 months than the TNFi group, although differences were lost by 12 months. Drug retention at 18 months was highest in the IL6Ri arm (68%) and CTLA-4i arm (80%) compared with only 55% in the TNFi group. Our findings support current guidance that IL6Ri should be considered in biologic naïve patients requiring biologic monotherapy, but also indicated that CTLA-4i could be an option.

Objectives: Target trial emulation is an intuitive design framework that encourages investigators to formulate their comparative effectiveness research (CER) question as a hypothetical randomised controlled trial (RCT). Our aim was to systematically review CER studies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide examples of design limitations that could be avoided using target trial emulation, and how these limitations might introduce bias., Methods: We searched for head-to-head CER studies of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA. Study designs were reviewed for seven components of the target trial emulation framework: eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, assignment procedures, follow-up period, outcome, causal contrasts of interest (ie, intention-to-treat (ITT) or per-protocol effect) and analysis plan. Hypothetical trials corresponding to the reported methods were assessed to identify design limitations that would have been avoided with an explicit target trial protocol. Analysis of the primary effectiveness outcome was chosen where multiple analyses were performed., Results: We found 31 CER studies, of which 29 (94%) had at least one design limitation belonging to seven components. The most common limitations related to: (1) eligibility criteria: 19/31 (61%) studies used post-baseline information to define baseline eligibility; (2) causal contrasts: 25 (81%) did not define whether ITT or per-protocol effects were estimated and (3) assignment procedures: 13 (42%) studies did not account for confounding by indication or relied solely on statistical confounder selection., Conclusions: Design limitations were found in 94% of observational CER studies in RA. Target trial emulation is a structured approach for designing observational CER studies that helps to avoid potential sources of bias., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Observational data facilitate examination of treatment-effect heterogeneity, but the risk of bias is substantial. The present study was undertaken to highlight methodologic considerations through an analysis of whether smoking affects response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in axial spondyloarthritis (SpA)., Methods: We used longitudinal data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis. Participants fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for axial SpA who started their first TNFi were eligible for analysis. In comparing the impact of smoking status, weighted generalized estimating equations were used to examine changes in several continuous outcome measures, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS). Inverse probability weights were used to account for differences in baseline covariates and excluded participants. We separately assessed response in the first 3 months to account for nonrandom dropout., Results: For 840 participants who started on TNFi, 1,641 assessments from 627 individuals were analyzed (69% male, mean age 46 years). A total of 33% were current smokers and 30% ex-smokers. Ex-smokers and current smokers had worse disease than never smokers at baseline. Accounting for these differences, response did not differ according to smoking status. Compared to never smokers, ex-smokers (β = -0.6, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -1.4, 0.3) and current smokers (β = -0.4, 95% CI -1.1, 0.4) had a similar response according to the BASDAI and ASDAS (ex-smokers β = -0.1, 95% CI -0.5, 0.3; current smokers β = -0.01, 95% CI -0.4, 0.4) at 3 months., Conclusion: TNFi response did not differ according to baseline smoking status in this UK cohort. Conflicting results from previous studies were likely due to methodologic differences. This analysis highlights potential sources of bias that should be addressed in future studies., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: This study aimed to compare comorbidities and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use between AS and non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA) patients, using a large cohort of patients from routine clinical practice in the United States., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study using electronic medical records from two academic hospitals in the United States. Data were extracted using automated searches (⩾3 ICD codes combined with text searches) and supplemented with manual chart review. Patients were categorized into AS or nr-axSpA according to classification criteria. Disease features, comorbidities (from a list of 39 chronic conditions) and history of bDMARD prescription were compared using descriptive statistics., Results: Among 965 patients identified, 775 (80%) were classified as having axSpA. The cohort was predominantly male (74%) with a mean age of 52.5 years (s.d. 16.8). AS patients were significantly older (54 vs 46 years), more frequently male (77% vs 64%) and had higher serum inflammatory markers than those with nr-axSpA (median CRP 3.4 vs 2.2 mg/dl). Half of all patients had at least one comorbidity. The mean number of comorbidities was 1.5 (s.d. 2.2) and similar between AS and nr-axSpA groups. A history of bDMARD-use was seen in 55% of patients with no difference between groups. The most commonly prescribed bDMARDs were adalimumab (31%) and etanercept (29%). Ever-prescriptions of individual bDMARDs were similar between AS and nr-axSpA., Conclusion: Despite age differences, nr-axSpA patients had similar comorbidity burdens as those with AS. Both groups received comparable bDMARD treatment in this United States clinic-based cohort., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)