Search

Objectives: Despite availability of efficacious treatments, unmet needs still exist, preventing optimal and comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evolving the management of RA (eRA) is a European-wide educational initiative aiming to support improved patient care through practical and educational tools addressing specific unmet needs., Methods: A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (17 members, 12 countries) identified unmet needs within the management of RA and prioritised those with the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Practical educational tools addressing priority needs were then developed for dissemination and implementation by the rheumatology community across Europe., Results: Five areas of priority need were identified: increasing early recognition of RA and treatment initiation; treating RA to target; optimal, holistic approach to selection of treatment strategy, including shared decision-making; improving identification and management of comorbidities; and non-pharmacological patient management. A suite of 14 eRA tools included educational slides, best-practice guidance, self‑assessment questionnaires, clinical checklists, a multidisciplinary team training exercise, an interactive patient infographic, and case scenarios. By April 2020, rheumatology professionals in 17 countries had been actively engaged in the eRA programme; in 11 countries, eRA tools were selected by national leaders in rheumatology and translated for local dissemination. A web platform, with country-specific pages, was developed to support access to the translated tools (https://www.evolvingthemanagementofra.com/)., Conclusions: The eRA programme supports comprehensive management of RA across Europe through development and dissemination of practical educational tools. The eRA tools address priority needs and are available free of charge to the rheumatology community.

Background: Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear., Methods: In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6., Results: A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels., Conclusions: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Inhibition of interleukin (IL)-1 represents a promising treatment option in adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD)., Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of canakinumab in patients with AOSD and active joint involvement by means of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial., Methods: Patients with AOSD and active joint involvement (tender and swollen joint counts of ≥4 each) were treated with canakinumab (4 mg/kg, maximum 300 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant reduction in disease activity at week 12 as determined by the change in disease activity score (ΔDAS28>1.2)., Results: At enrolment, patients had high active disease with a mean DAS28(ESR) of 5.4 in the canakinumab and 5.3 in the placebo group, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 12 patients (67%) in the canakinumab group and 7 patients (41%) in the placebo group fulfilled the primary outcome criterion (p=0.18). In the per-protocol analysis, significantly higher American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 30% (61% vs 20%, p=0.033), ACR 50% (50% vs 6.7%, p=0.009) and ACR 70% (28% vs 0%, p=0.049) response rates were observed in the canakinumab group compared with the placebo group. Two patients in the canakinumab group experienced a serious adverse event., Conclusion: Although the study was terminated prematurely and the primary endpoint was not achieved, treatment with canakinumab led to an improvement of several outcome measures in AOSD. The overall safety findings were consistent with the known profile of canakinumab. Thus, our data support indication for IL-1 inhibition with canakinumab in AOSD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CK has received personal advisory board and congress fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sobi. FB has received grants from Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai and Janssen, and consultant, speaker or advisory board fees from Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, UCB, BMS, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Biotest, Janssen, Genzyme and Lilly; Boehringer; and Sandoz. NB has received grants from Novartis and Sobi, and personal fees from Novartis, Sobi, Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Actelion, UCB, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Roche. JCH has received grants from Novartis, Roche and Celgene, and advisory board and speaker fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Abbvie, Sanofi, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Celgene. AR-R has received speaker fees from UCB, and advisory board and speaker fees from Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvie, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi and Celgene. CS has received personal fees from Abbvie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Lilly, Novartis, Sobi, UCB, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB and Toshiba. EF has received advisory board and speaker fees from Novartis, Roche, Sobi, Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvie, BMS, MSD and Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field., Methods: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items., Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high., Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DA: grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Roche and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Genzyme; MA: honoraria from AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, HEXAL, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB; JA: grants from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, UCB; AB: grants from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Biogen, Sandoz, Celltrion, Nordic, Gilead; JWJB: honoraria from Lilly, Roche, Sanofi; MB: honoraria from BMS, Teva, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK; AdB: grants from Abbvie, Biogen, Celltrion and honoraria from Abbvie, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Fresenius, MSD, Roche.MHB has received grants from Pfizer, Roche and UCB and consulting fees from Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Merck.Serono, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi; GB: grants from Abbvie, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB and honoraria from Abbvie, Celgene, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche. FB: grants from Abbvie, BMS, Horizon, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Sanofi and honoraria from Abbvie, Galapagos, Horizon, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, BMS, MSD, Lilly; RC: honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB; MC; honoraria from Abbvie, Astellas, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer and Roche; DDC: no conflict; CC: honoraria from AbbVie, Accord Healthcare, Alfasigma, Berlin Chemie, Egis, Eli Lilly, Ewopharma, Genesis, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB; MD: grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Novartis and honoraria from Pfizer, Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, BMS, Celgene, Biogen, Sandoz; CJE: grants from Abbvie, Biogen and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Fresenius, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Mundipharma, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB; PE: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Samsung, Lilly and honoraria from AbbVie, Novartis, BMS, Gilead, Samsung, Lilly; AF: grants from BMS, Pfizer and honoraria from AB2 BIO, Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi; LG: grants from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, UCB and honoraria from Abbvie, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB; J-EG: grants from BMS, Pfizer and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, UCB; MLH: grants from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, MSD, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Samsung, UCB; TH: grants from Lilly, Merck, UCB, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Galapagos, Boeringher and honoraria from Abblynx, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Crescendo Bioscience, Galapagos, Lilly; AK: honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Celgene, MSD; MK: no conflicts of interest; RBML: honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, UCB and Director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV; XM: honoraria from BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Samsung, UCB; IBM: grants from Astra Zeneca, UCB, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Compugen, Boehringer, Celgene and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Causeway, Lilly, Leo, Novimmune; EM: grants from Pfizer, Lilly, BMS, AbbVie, GSK, Astra and honoraria from Pfizer, BMS, Roche, Lilly, AbbVie, Gemma, Sanofi; TWJH: grants from Eli Lilly, Merck, UCB, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Galapagos, Boehringer and honoraria from Abblynx, Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer, Crescendo-Bioscience, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Nycomed, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, UCB; ZL: no conflicts of interest; UM-L: honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Chugai, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer, Actelion, Medac, Lilly; GP: no conflicts of interest; JP: grants from BMS, Merck, UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Bayer, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB; AR-R: honoraria from Abbvie, Chugai, BMS, Sanofi, Roche, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Celgene, MSD, UCB; AR-W: grants from Pfizer, Abbvie and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, UCB; KS: grants from Amgen, Ironwood/AstraZeneca, Horizon, SOBI, Takeda and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Ironwood/AstraZeneca, Bayer, Gilead, Horizon, Kowa, Radius, Roche/Genentech, SOBI, Takeda, Teijin; MSV: no conflicts of interest. AS: honoraria from Novartis; JSS: grants from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB; AS: grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal AG Lilly, MSD Sharp & Dome, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche; TT: grants from AbbVie, Asahikasei, Astellas, AYUMI, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nipponkayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and honoraria from AbbVie, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, Diaichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nipponkayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Teijin, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, UCB; DvdH: grants from UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB and Director Imaging Rheumatology BV; YvE-H: honoraria from Celgene; RFvV: grants from BMS, GSK, Lilly, UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB; RW: grants from Roche, BMS and honoraria from Celltrion, Galapagos-Gilead; MdW: honoraria from 'Stichting Tools', Janssen-Cilag., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To evaluate early and late responses in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating tocilizumab and early tocilizumab non-responders who switched to rituximab., Methods: In this open-label, non-randomised phase 3 study, RA patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg intravenously at study begin and weeks 4, 8 and 12. After evaluation at week 16, early responders (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] <2.6) completed the study; partial responders (DAS28-ESR decrease >1.2 or DAS28-ESR ≥2.6-≤3.2) were to continue tocilizumab through week 28; non-responders (DAS28-ESR decrease ≤1.2) switched to rituximab (1000 mg, weeks 16 and 18) with safety follow-up through week 66., Results: Of 519 patients, 222 (42.8%) achieved early DAS28-ESR remission at week 16; 240 patients continued treatment, 213 (41.0%) received tocilizumab, and 27 (5.2%) switched to rituximab. At week 32 DAS28-ESR remission was achieved by 117/213 patients (54.9%) who continued tocilizumab and 4/27 patients (14.8%) who switched to rituximab; good EULAR response was achieved by 66.7% and 25.9% and CDAI remission by 19.2% and 14.8% of patients, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred through week 32 in 45/490 patients (9.2%) who received tocilizumab (serious infections, 2.7%) and through week 66 in 8/27 patients (29.6%) who switched to rituximab., Conclusions: Early response to tocilizumab was observed in 42.8% of patients. Half of early partial responders benefitted from continuing tocilizumab. Switching non-responders to rituximab seems feasible. No new safety signals were observed in patients treated with tocilizumab or switched to rituximab.

Tocilizumab (TCZ) is the first humanized anti-interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Castleman's disease, polyarticular and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and, most recently, giant cell arteritis as well as for the treatment of chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy-induced cytokine release syndrome. The global clinical development program for TCZ provides a wealth of clinical data on intravenous TCZ, and more recent studies in patients with RA have provided evidence characterizing the role of intravenous TCZ as monotherapy in early disease and led to the introduction of a subcutaneous formulation of TCZ. In addition, recently published open-label extension and observational studies continue to support the long-term efficacy and safety of TCZ in both clinical trial and real-world settings. Given the involvement of IL-6-mediated signaling in inflammatory disorders, TCZ is also being investigated in other immunological diseases. In particular, a phase 2 trial on the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous TCZ in adults with systemic sclerosis shows clinically relevant improvements in skin sclerosis and lung function in these patients. Another anti-IL-6 receptor agent, sarilumab, targeting the IL6 receptor alpha subunit, was recently approved for the treatment of patients with RA, although long-term data for this biologic are not yet published. In this article we review the placement of TCZ in current treatment guidelines; recent clinical trial data, including quality of life in patients with RA; recent updates to the TCZ safety profile; recent investigations of TCZ in other immunological diseases; and the clinical development of other novel IL-6-targeted agents.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Traditionally, B cells have been best known for their role as producers of antibodies. However, in recent years, a growing body of evidence has accumulated showing that B cells fulfill a range of other immunologic functions. One of the functions that has attracted increasing attention is the capacity of B cells to induce antigen-specific activation of T cells through presentation of antigens. However, the analysis of this B cell function has been hampered by the lack of a phenotypically well-defined antigen-presenting B cell subset. Here, we report the identification of a human antigen-presenting B cell subset with strong immunostimulatory properties. This B cell subset is characterized by low expression of CD21 and high expression of the activation marker CD86 and exhibits strong T cell-stimulatory activity, as demonstrated by means of an autologous mixed-lymphocyte reaction. Phenotypically, CD21 low CD86 pos immunostimulatory B cells (B APC ) represented CD27 + class-switched IgM neg IgD neg B lymphocytes and displayed a higher expression of cell surface receptors, which mediate the migration from peripheral blood to sites of inflammation. Flow cytometric analysis of peripheral blood obtained from individuals with inflammatory conditions revealed that the B APC subset was expanded following vaccination and in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Taken together, our work shows that B APC represents a strongly immunostimulatory B cell subset, which could be a promising target for immunotherapeutic intervention in inflammatory diseases., (© Society for Leukocyte Biology.)

Objectives: The efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ), an anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody, has not previously been evaluated in a population consisting exclusively of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: In a double-blind randomised controlled trial (FUNCTION), 1162 methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with early progressive RA were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to one of four treatment groups: 4 mg/kg TCZ+MTX, 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX, 8 mg/kg TCZ+placebo and placebo+MTX (comparator group). The primary outcome was remission according to Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) <2.6) at week 24. Radiographic and physical function outcomes were also evaluated. We report results through week 52., Results: The intent-to-treat population included 1157 patients. Significantly more patients receiving 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX and 8 mg/kg TCZ+placebo than receiving placebo+MTX achieved DAS28-ESR remission at week 24 (45% and 39% vs 15%; p<0.0001). The 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX group also achieved significantly greater improvement in radiographic disease progression and physical function at week 52 than did patients treated with placebo+MTX (mean change from baseline in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score, 0.08 vs 1.14 (p=0.0001); mean reduction in Health Assessment Disability Index, -0.81 vs -0.64 (p=0.0024)). In addition, the 8 mg/kg TCZ+placebo and 4 mg/kg TCZ+MTX groups demonstrated clinical efficacy that was at least as effective as MTX for these key secondary endpoints. Serious adverse events were similar among treatment groups. Adverse events resulting in premature withdrawal occurred in 20% of patients in the 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX group., Conclusions: TCZ is effective in combination with MTX and as monotherapy for the treatment of patients with early RA., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01007435., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

In chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases and infections are suboptimally prevented, screened for and managed. The objective of this European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) initiative was to propose points to consider to collect comorbidities in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We also aimed to develop a pragmatic reporting form to foster the implementation of the points to consider. In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, the process comprised (1) a systematic literature review of existing recommendations on reporting, screening for or preventing six selected comorbidities: ischaemic cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, infections, gastrointestinal diseases, osteoporosis and depression and (2) a consensus process involving 21 experts (ie, rheumatologists, patients, health professionals). Recommendations on how to treat the comorbidities were not included in the document as they vary across countries. The literature review retrieved 42 articles, most of which were recommendations for reporting or screening for comorbidities in the general population. The consensus process led to three overarching principles and 15 points to consider, related to the six comorbidities, with three sections: (1) reporting (ie, occurrence of the comorbidity and current treatments); (2) screening for disease (eg, mammography) or for risk factors (eg, smoking) and (3) prevention (eg, vaccination). A reporting form (93 questions) corresponding to a practical application of the points to consider was developed. Using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus, this EULAR initiative aims to improve the reporting and prevention of comorbidities in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Next steps include dissemination and implementation., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) tocilizumab (TCZ) versus intravenous (IV) TCZ, including switching formulations, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)., Methods: Patients (n=1262) were randomised 1:1 to receive TCZ-SC 162 mg weekly (qw)+placebo-IV every four weeks (q4w) or TCZ-IV 8 mg/kg q4w+placebo-SC qw in combination with DMARD(s). After a 24-week double-blind period, patients receiving TCZ-SC were re-randomised 11:1 to TCZ-SC (n=521) or TCZ-IV (TCZ-SC-IV, n=48), and patients receiving TCZ-IV were re-randomised 2:1 to TCZ-IV (n=372) or TCZ-SC (TCZ-IV-SC; n=186). Maintenance of clinical responses and safety through week 97 were assessed., Results: The proportions of patients who achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responses, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints remission and improvement from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index ≥0.3 were sustained through week 97 and comparable across arms. TCZ-SC had a comparable safety profile to TCZ-IV through week 97, except that injection site reactions (ISRs) were more common with TCZ-SC. Safety profiles in patients who switched were similar to those in patients who received continuous TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment. The proportion of patients who developed anti-TCZ antibodies remained low across treatment arms. No association between anti-TCZ antibody development and clinical response or adverse events was observed., Conclusions: The long-term efficacy and safety of TCZ-SC was maintained and comparable to that of TCZ-IV, except for ISRs. Profiles in patients who switched formulations were comparable to those in patients who received TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC. TCZ-SC provides additional treatment options for patients with RA., Trial Registration Number: NCT01194414., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: To investigate whether bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor approved for treatment of multiple myeloma, induces clinically relevant plasma cell (PC) depletion in patients with active, refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)., Methods: Twelve patients received a median of two (range 1-4) 21-day cycles of intravenous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)) with the coadministration of dexamethasone (20 mg) for active SLE. Disease activity was assessed using the SLEDAI-2K score. Serum concentrations of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and vaccine-induced protective antibodies were monitored. Flow cytometry was performed to analyse peripheral blood B-cells, PCs and Siglec-1 expression on monocytes as surrogate marker for type-I interferon (IFN) activity., Results: Upon proteasome inhibition, disease activity significantly declined and remained stable for 6 months on maintenance therapies. Nineteen treatment-emergent adverse events occurred and, although mostly mild to moderate, resulted in treatment discontinuation in seven patients. Serum antibody levels significantly declined, with greater reductions in anti-dsDNA (∼60%) than vaccine-induced protective antibody titres (∼30%). Bortezomib significantly reduced the numbers of peripheral blood and bone marrow PCs (∼50%), but their numbers increased between cycles. Siglec-1 expression on monocytes significantly declined., Conclusions: These findings identify proteasome inhibitors as a putative therapeutic option for patients with refractory SLE by targeting PCs and type-I IFN activity, but our results must be confirmed in controlled trials., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: To determine the safety, tolerability and signs of efficacy of MOR103, a human monoclonal antibody to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Patients with active, moderate RA were enrolled in a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial of intravenous MOR103 (0.3, 1.0 or 1.5 mg/kg) once a week for 4 weeks, with follow-up to 16 weeks. The primary outcome was safety., Results: Of the 96 randomised and treated subjects, 85 completed the trial (n=27, 24, 22 and 23 for pooled placebo and MOR103 0.3, 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg, respectively). Treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) in the MOR103 groups were mild or moderate in intensity and generally reported at frequencies similar to those in the placebo group. The most common AE was nasopharyngitis. In two cases, AEs were classified as serious because of hospitalisation: paronychia in a placebo subject and pleurisy in a MOR103 0.3 mg/kg subject. Both patients recovered fully. In exploratory efficacy analyses, subjects in the MOR103 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg groups showed significant improvements in Disease Activity Score-28 scores and joint counts and significantly higher European League Against Rheumatism response rates than subjects receiving placebo. MOR103 1.0 mg/kg was associated with the largest reductions in disease activity parameters., Conclusions: MOR103 was well tolerated and showed preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with active RA. The data support further investigation of this monoclonal antibody to GM-CSF in RA patients and potentially in those with other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases., Trial Registration Number: NCT01023256., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Objectives: This study compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) formulations of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)., Methods: Patients (n=1262) were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab-SC 162 mg weekly+placebo-IV every 4 weeks or tocilizumab-IV 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks+placebo-SC weekly in combination with traditional DMARD. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of tocilizumab-SC to tocilizumab-IV with regard to the proportion of patients in each group achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 24 using a 12% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Secondary outcomes were disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28), ACR responses, health assessment questionnaire scores and safety assessments., Results: At week 24, 69.4% (95% CI 65.5 to 73.2) of tocilizumab-SC-treated patients versus 73.4% (95% CI 69.6 to 77.1) of tocilizumab-IV-treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (weighted difference between groups -4.0%, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.2); the 12% NIM was met. ACR50/70 responses, DAS28 and physical function improvements were comparable between the tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV groups. The safety profiles of tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV were similar, and the most common adverse event was infection. Injection-site reactions (ISR) occurred more frequently in the tocilizumab-SC group than in the tocilizumab-IV (placebo-SC) group. No anaphylaxis was reported over the 24 weeks., Conclusions: Tocilizumab-SC 162 mg weekly demonstrated comparable efficacy to tocilizumab-IV 8 mg/kg. The safety profile of tocilizumab-SC is consistent with the known and well-established safety profile of tocilizumab-IV, with the exception of a higher incidence of ISR, which were more common with tocilizumab-SC administration.

The German Society of Rheumatology approved new German guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of RA published in 2010. An update of the EULAR systematic literature research was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Meta-analyses, controlled trials, cohort studies, and registry data addressing traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids, and treatment strategies published between January 2009 and August 2011 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated and compared the additional data that had been published after the time limit set by the EULAR recommendations. A national guideline working group developed an adapted set of recommendations. The new German guidelines were accepted by vote using an informal Delphi approach. Twelve recommendations and the resulting updated treatment algorithm were developed and approved as a practical orientation for rheumatologists. These recommendations are based on a successive treatment with traditional and biologic disease-modifying drugs depending on the individual progress of the disease and distinct patient characteristics. The German guidelines have been developed on the basis of the internationally well-recognized EULAR recommendations. In addition, more recent evidence from a systematic literature research was considered. They have been developed and approved by a group of national experts aiming at guidance for rheumatologists to reach best medical practice.

Background: Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion., Methods: Preparation of this document involved international experts in RA treatment and RA patients. A systematic literature search was performed that focused on TCZ and other IL6-pathway inhibitors in RA and other diseases. Subsequently, incorporating available published evidence and expert opinion, the steering committee and a broader expert committee (both including RA patients) formulated the current consensus statement., Results: The consensus statement covers use of TCZ as combination- or monotherapy in various RA populations and includes clinical, functional and structural aspects. The statement also addresses the second approved indication in Europe JIA and non-approved indications. Also early phase trials involving additional agents that target the IL-6 receptor or IL-6 were evaluated. Safety concerns, including haematological, hepatic and metabolic issues as well as infections, are addressed likewise., Conclusions: The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety. The document is aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.

TRU-015, being developed by Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc and Pfizer Inc, is an intravenously administered anti-CD20 IgG fusion protein for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. TRU-015 depletes B-cells from the peripheral blood in vitro, and can mediate complement-and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. TRU-015 was well tolerated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in phase I and II clinical trials, and demonstrated an efficacy profile similar to other biological agents approved for rheumatoid arthritis. At the time of publication, phase II trials were ongoing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. TRU-015 could represent a novel therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, although the efficacy, safety profile and advantages of this compound compared with existing therapeutic options would need to be established in phase III trials. In addition, this agent also may be useful to the treatment of B-cell neoplasms and autoimmune diseases.

New treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis are targeted to interfere with critical mediators of inflammation. Proinflammatory cytokines like IL-1 beta and TNFalpha play a crucial role in induction and maintenance of synovitis, pannus formation and bone and cartilage destruction. Within a few years, these morphological changes may lead to joint destruction and consecutively to functional impairment. Since April 2002 a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (Anakinra) is available in Germany for treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Anakinra (Kineret(R)) is approved for therapy in combination with methotrexate and should be applied according to guidelines established by the German Rheumatology Society for the use of biologicals in treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The approval of anakinra as a new therapeutic is based on data obtained in large multicenter, placebo-controlled, and randomised trials in comparison to placebo. Treatment of Anakinra as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate lead to significant improvement of signs and symptoms of disease as measured by the ACR 20 (or more) response and was associated with a slower radiographic progression with regard to joint space narrowing and development of erosions. Anakinra showed a favourable safety profile with injection side reactions as the predominant side effect that occurs in 70% of patients usually after 10-12 days of treatment and that are mostly mild to moderate and self-limiting. Patients with previous pneumonia or other risk factors for pulmonary infections such as chronic obstructive lung disease seem to show a slightly increased risk of developing infectious complications of the bronchopulmonary system while being on anakinra and should be monitored appropriately. Combining IL-1ra treatment with the use of anti-TNF agents showed an increased risk of infectious complications in clinical studies and is not recommended at present. Studies are currently assessing the use of anakinra for treatment of other rheumatic diseases like psoriatic arthritis, juvenile arthritis or spondylarthropathy.