Search

Objective. To explore the experiences and perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on decision aid (DA)-led tapering of advanced therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Semistructured interviews were completed with patients and rheumatologists, embedded within a pilot study of DA-led tapering (ie, dose reduction) of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) in RA. All patients were in sustained (≥ 6 mos) remission and had chosen to reduce their therapy after a DA-led shared decision with their rheumatologist. The rheumatologists included those participating in the pilot (n = 4), and those who were not (n = 8). Reflexive thematic analysis of audiotaped and transcribed interviews identified themes in the group experiences. Results. Patients (n = 10, 6 female) unanimously found the DA easy to understand and felt confident in shared decision making about treatment tapering and managing flares. Rheumatologists' (n = 12, 5 female) perspectives on tapering bDMARDs and tsDMARDs varied widely, from very supportive to completely opposed, and influenced their views on the DA. Rheumatologists expressed concerns about patient comprehension, destabilizing a stable situation, risks of flare, and extending appointment times. Despite their initial reservations about sending the DA to all eligible patients ahead of appointments, 3 of 4 participating rheumatologists adopted this approach during the pilot, which had the benefit of facilitating patient-led conversations. Conclusion. A DA-led strategy for tapering advanced therapy in RA was acceptable to patients and feasible in practice. Sending patients a DA ahead of their appointment facilitated patient-led conversations about tapering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leena R Baghdadi Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Leena R Baghdadi, Email baghdadi@ksu.edu.saAbstract: Depression is a possible cause of the increased mental health risks associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including depression-related complications. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARDs) therapies have emerged as innovative anti-inflammatory drugs with positive effects on mental well-being. Tocilizumab is a bDMARDs commonly used to treat RA and its influence on depression needs to be studied. It targets interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptors, reducing inflammation, which may also alleviate depressive symptoms due to the role of inflammation in the pathophysiology of depression. Thus, its influence on depression needs to be studied. To assess the strength of the association between exposure to tocilizumab and the rate of development of depression in patients with RA and to evaluate tocilizumab as an exposure and depression as an outcome in these patients, a search was conducted in the MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from January 1980 to April 2024. Inclusion criteria were studies that diagnosed RA according to the latest American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism guidelines or a rheumatologist and provided information on tocilizumab exposure and diagnosed depression as an outcome. The present meta-analysis was conducted following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. These studies were assessed for eligibility by the author and an independent assessor. To summarize the findings, the meta-analysis combined the relative risk estimates from each study with raw data counts. Twelve studies in the meta-analysis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Tocilizumab monotherapy exhibited a promising beneficial effect on the risk of depression, indicated by the decreased risk in RA patients (Relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.20, 2.31). Patients with RA on tocilizumab treatment had a lower risk of developing depression compared to those unexposed to tocilizumab treatment. Therefore, future longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the beneficial effect of tocilizumab on depression in the RA population.Keywords: rheumatoid, Actemra, depression, traditional DMARDs, biologic DMARDs

Introduction: Skin involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) worsens the severity and burden of disease. Ixekizumab (IXE), a selective interleukin (IL)-17A antagonist, was compared to placebo (PBO) in the SPIRIT-P1 (NCT01695239) and SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295) studies in patients with PsA and evidence of plaque psoriasis. This post hoc analysis reports musculoskeletal, skin, and nail outcomes through week 24 in patients from SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2, stratified by mild, moderate, or psoriasis at baseline. Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled patients from SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2 who were randomly assigned to PBO or IXE 80 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W). Efficacy outcomes were analyzed through week 24 by baseline psoriasis severity, defined by percent body surface area (BSA) affected; mild = BSA < 3%, moderate = 3% ≤ BSA ≤ 10%, severe = BSA > 10%. The primary outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses. Secondary outcomes included musculoskeletal, disease activity, skin and nail, and health-related quality-of-life measures. Results: Similar proportions of patients achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 over time across all severity subgroups and treatment arms. More than one-third of IXE-treated patients achieved ACR20 at week 4, or ACR50 at week 24, with no significant differences according to psoriasis severity at baseline. Disease activity outcomes were similar through week 24 with both IXEQ4W and IXEQ2W, regardless of psoriasis severity at baseline. There were no significant differences over 24 weeks in the proportions of IXE-treated patients with mild, moderate, or severe baseline psoriasis who achieved Minimal Disease Activity (MDA). Across all severity subgroups, IXE demonstrated Psoriasis Area Severity Index 100 response as early as week 4, and approximately one-third of IXE-treated patients achieved total skin clearance at week 24. Conclusion: IXE demonstrated rapid and consistent efficacy in joint, skin, and nail for patients with PsA, regardless of baseline psoriasis severity. Trial Registration: SPIRIT-P1 (NCT01695239), SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Skin involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) worsens the severity and burden of disease. Ixekizumab (IXE), a selective interleukin (IL)-17A antagonist, was compared to placebo (PBO) in the SPIRIT-P1 (NCT01695239) and SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295) studies in patients with PsA and evidence of plaque psoriasis. This post hoc analysis reports musculoskeletal, skin, and nail outcomes through week 24 in patients from SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2, stratified by mild, moderate, or severe psoriasis at baseline. Methods This post hoc analysis pooled patients from SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2 who were randomly assigned to PBO or IXE 80 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W). Efficacy outcomes were analyzed through week 24 by baseline psoriasis severity, defined by percent body surface area (BSA) affected; mild = BSA 10%. The primary outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses. Secondary outcomes included musculoskeletal, disease activity, skin and nail, and health-related quality-of-life measures. Results Similar proportions of patients achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 over time across all severity subgroups and treatment arms. More than one-third of IXE-treated patients achieved ACR20 at week 4, or ACR50 at week 24, with no significant differences according to psoriasis severity at baseline. Disease activity outcomes were similar through week 24 with both IXEQ4W and IXEQ2W, regardless of psoriasis severity at baseline. There were no significant differences over 24 weeks in the proportions of IXE-treated patients with mild, moderate, or severe baseline psoriasis who achieved Minimal Disease Activity (MDA). Across all severity subgroups, IXE demonstrated Psoriasis Area Severity Index 100 response as early as week 4, and approximately one-third of IXE-treated patients achieved total skin clearance at week 24. Conclusion IXE demonstrated rapid and consistent efficacy in joint, skin, and nail for patients with PsA, regardless of baseline psoriasis severity. Trial Registration SPIRIT-P1 (NCT01695239), SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295).

Introduction: To understand factors leading to biologic switches and to develop a readily usable model with data collected in clinical care at preceding visits, with the overall aim to predict the probability of switching biologic at a subsequent clinic visit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Participants were adults with RA participating in the CorEvitas RA registry. The study matched patients who switched biologics or targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) with control patients who had not switched biologics/tsDMARDs; the cohort was divided into a training and test set for prediction model development and validation. Using the training set, the best subset regression, lasso, and elastic net methods were used to determine the best potential models. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used for the final selection of the best model, and estimated coefficients of this model were applied to the test dataset to predict switching. Results: A total of 5050 patients were included, of whom 3016 were in the training set and 2034 were in the test dataset. The average age was 59.6 years, the majority were female (3998, 79.2%), and the average duration of RA at the time of switch or control visit was 12.8 years. The final model included prior Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) by category, prior patient pain measurement, change in CDAI from baseline, age group, and number of prior biologics, all of which were significantly associated with switching biologics. The AUC was 0.690 for this model with the training dataset. The model was then applied to the test data with similar performance; the AUC was 0.687. Conclusion: We have developed a simple model to determine the probability of switching biologics for RA at the following clinic visit. This model could be used in practice to provide clinicians with more information about their patient's trajectory and likelihood of switching to a new biologic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction To understand factors leading to biologic switches and to develop a readily usable model with data collected in clinical care at preceding visits, with the overall aim to predict the probability of switching biologic at a subsequent clinic visit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Participants were adults with RA participating in the CorEvitas RA registry. The study matched patients who switched biologics or targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) with control patients who had not switched biologics/tsDMARDs; the cohort was divided into a training and test set for prediction model development and validation. Using the training set, the best subset regression, lasso, and elastic net methods were used to determine the best potential models. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used for the final selection of the best model, and estimated coefficients of this model were applied to the test dataset to predict switching. Results A total of 5050 patients were included, of whom 3016 were in the training set and 2034 were in the test dataset. The average age was 59.6 years, the majority were female (3998, 79.2%), and the average duration of RA at the time of switch or control visit was 12.8 years. The final model included prior Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) by category, prior patient pain measurement, change in CDAI from baseline, age group, and number of prior biologics, all of which were significantly associated with switching biologics. The AUC was 0.690 for this model with the training dataset. The model was then applied to the test data with similar performance; the AUC was 0.687. Conclusion We have developed a simple model to determine the probability of switching biologics for RA at the following clinic visit. This model could be used in practice to provide clinicians with more information about their patient’s trajectory and likelihood of switching to a new biologic.

Objectives: Despite the ethnic differences in cardiovascular (CV) risks and recent increase in the prescription of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, limited evidence is available for their CV outcomes in Asian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to compare the major adverse CV events (MACEs) of JAK inhibitors to those of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in Korean patients with RA without baseline CV disease (CVD). Methods: In a nationwide retrospective cohort study, patients newly diagnosed with RA without a history of CVD between 2013 and 2018 were identified using the National Health Insurance Service database. The cohort was followed up until the end of 2019 for the development of MACEs. Hazard ratios (HRs) for MACEs such as myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or all-cause death, were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression in a propensity score-matched cohort. Results: In total, 4,230 matched patients with RA were included (846 JAK inhibitor users and 3,384 bDMARD users). The crude incidence rate (95% confidence intervals, CI) per 100 patient-years for MACEs was 0.83 (0.31-1.81) and 0.74 (0.53-1.02) in the JAK inhibitor and bDMARD groups, respectively. The risk of MACEs was not significantly different between JAK inhibitor and bDMARD users with an adjusted HR (95% CI) of 1.28 (0.53-3.11). There were no significant differences in the risk of MACEs between JAK inhibitors and bDMARDs in each subgroup according to the types of bDMARDs, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index score, and comorbidities. Conclusion: Compared to bDMARDs, JAK inhibitors were not associated with the occurrence of MACEs in Korean patients with RA without a history of CVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this guideline is to provide up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for the management of SLE that builds upon the existing treatment guideline for adults living with SLE published in 2017. This will incorporate advances in the assessment, diagnosis, monitoring, non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of SLE. General approaches to management as well as organ-specific treatment, including lupus nephritis and cutaneous lupus, will be covered. This will be the first guideline in SLE using a whole life course approach from childhood through adolescence and adulthood. The guideline will be developed with people with SLE as an important target audience in addition to healthcare professionals. It will include guidance related to emerging approved therapies and account for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Health Service England clinical commissioning policies and national guidance relevant to SLE. The guideline will be developed using the methods and rigorous processes outlined in 'Creating Clinical Guidelines: Our Protocol' by the British Society for Rheumatology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background New biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) and biosimilar DMARDs (bsDMARDs) all showed greater clinical benefits in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with high disease activity, but imposed higher costs than standard treatment. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 11 alternative treatment strategies for RA patients with high disease activity whose treatment with three conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) failed. Methods A Markov model was constructed using a societal perspective to estimate relevant costs and health outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for a lifetime horizon (100 years), given a 3% annual discount. Alternative treatment strategies including five bDMARDs, two tsDMARDs, and four bsDMARDs in combination with methotrexate (MTX) were compared with the standard of care (SoC), i.e., cyclosporine and azathioprine. Direct and non-medical care costs were estimated by identifying the resources used, then multiplied by the standard costing menu in the year 2022. Utility and transitional probabilities were collected in three advanced tertiary hospitals. A network meta-analysis was used to estimate the efficacy of each treatment. Lifetime cost, QALYs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated and compared to the cost-effectiveness threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY gained (US $4,634, where 1 USD = 34.53 THB in 2022). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainties. Results The bDMARDs, tsDMARDs or bsDMARDs combined with MTX provided 0.09 to 0.33 QALYs gained with additional costs of 550,986 to 2,096,744 THB (US $15,957 to $60,722) compared to the SoC. The ICER ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 million THB per QALY (US $65,935 to $234,996) compared to the SoC. None of these combinations was cost-effective in the Thai context. The results were sensitive to the mortality hazard ratio of patients with high disease activity. Conclusions Combinations of MTX with either bDMARDs, tsDMARDs or bsDMARDs were not economically attractive compared to the standard practice. However, they reduced disease activity and improved patient quality of life. The price negotiation process for these treatments must be conducted to ensure their financial value and affordability before they are included in the pharmaceutical reimbursement list.

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatic diseases with a good patient tolerance. However, high cost and individualistic approach requires dedication of the physician. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the prescription of biologic DMARDs in rheumatology at the University Hospital of Split. The data collection was conducted through an archive search in the Outpatient Clinic for Rheumatology in the University Hospital of Split, Split, Croatia. The search included the period before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Croatia (31 March 2020). Collected data included age, sex, ICD-10 code of diagnosis, generic and brand name of the prescribed drug, date of therapy initiation, and medication administration route. In the pre-COVID-19 period, 209 patients were processed, while in the COVID-19 period, 185 patients were processed (11.5% fewer). During pre-COVID-19, 231 biologic medications were prescribed, while during COVID-19, 204. During COVID-19, IL-6 inhibitors were less prescribed (48 (21%) vs. 21 (10%) prescriptions, p = 0.003), while IL-17A inhibitors were more prescribed (39 (17%) vs. 61 (30%) prescriptions, p = 0.001). In ankylosing spondylitis (AS), adalimumab was prescribed more during pre-COVID-19 (25 vs. 15 patients, p = 0.010), while ixekizumab was prescribed less (1 vs. 10 patients, p = 0.009). In rheumatoid arthritis, tocilizumab was prescribed more in the pre-COVID-19 period (34 vs. 10 patients, p = 0.012). Overall, the prescription trends of biologic DMARDs for rheumatologic diseases did not vary significantly in the University Hospital of Split, Croatia. Tocilizumab was prescribed less during COVID-19 due to shortages, while ixekizumab was more prescribed during COVID-19 due to an increase in psoriatic arthritis patients processed and due to being approved for treating AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) decrease cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and whether biologic DMARDs might have a beneficial effect on coronary plaque formation or progression.MethodsIn this single-center observational cohort study, 150 patients underwent computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary atherosclerosis (total, noncalcified, mixed/calcified, and low-attenuation plaque); 101 had repeat assessments within a mean ± SD of 6.9 ± 0.3 years to evaluate plaque progression. All CVD events were prospectively recorded, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, revascularization, stroke, claudication, and hospitalization for heart failure. The Framingham-D'Agostino score was used to assess cardiovascular risk. The segment stenosis score was used to measure plaque burden. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated.ResultsAfter adjustment for the segment stenosis score, the Framingham-D'Agostino score, and time-varying Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level using marginal structural models, current biologic DMARD use was associated with lower long-term CVD risk (OR 0.15 [95% CI 0.04-0.60]). Noncalcified and low-attenuation plaque presence moderated the effect of biologic DMARDs on CVD risk; specifically, biologic DMARD use was associated with lower CVD risk in patients with noncalcified or low-attenuation plaque at baseline (OR 0.21 [95% CI 0.04-0.99] and OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01-0.70], respectively), but not in those without noncalcified or low-attenuation plaque. Per-segment plaque progression analyses showed that biologic DMARD exposure was associated with transition of noncalcified to mixed/calcified plaque (OR 4.00 [95% CI 1.05-15.32]). Biologic DMARD exposure predicted a lower likelihood of new plaque forming in segments without plaque among patients without mixed/calcified plaque in other coronary segments (OR 0.40 [95% CI 0.17-0.93]), but not among those with calcification. Biologic DMARD treatment also predicted low-attenuation plaque loss (P = 0.042).ConclusionOur findings indicate that in RA, biologic DMARD use is associated with reduced CVD risk, protective calcification of noncalcified lesions, and lower likelihood of new plaque formation in patients with early atherosclerosis.

Abstract Introduction Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including certolizumab pegol (CZP), are effective treatment options for the management of non-radiographic spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). In the absence of head-to-head comparisons in nr-axSpA, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to better understand the comparative efficacy of CZP vs. other bDMARDs. Methods Literature searches were conducted in October 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials in patients with nr-axSpA who had failed at least one non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and were treated with bDMARDs. Outcomes of interest included the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and spinal pain score. Comparative efficacy was examined using a series of Bucher ITCs in subgroups matched by prior exposure to bDMARDs, disease duration, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) levels/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) status, and timepoints, to ensure comparability between studies. Results At 12–16 weeks, treatment with CZP was significantly more likely to achieve ASAS20/40 response and ASDAS-inactive disease status vs. etanercept (ETN), ixekizumab (IXE), and secukinumab (SEC). CZP showed statistically significant improvement in BASDAI, BASFI, and total spine pain score over adalimumab (ADA), ETN, and IXE, and in BASFI over SEC. Among patients with objective signs of inflammation (OSI; elevated CRP levels and/or inflammation on MRI at baseline), CZP had a statistically significant advantage over ETN and SEC (with or without loading dose) in achieving ASAS40, whereas the comparisons with other bDMARDs did not show any statistically significant differences. Conclusion In the overall matched population, CZP performed significantly better than most comparators in improving the clinical outcomes. Among patients with OSI, CZP was found to be superior to SEC (in the MRI−/CRP + and MRI + /CRP− subgroups) and ETN (in the MRI + /CRP− subgroup) and it was comparable to golimumab and IXE across the different OSI subgroups.

Background: New biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) and biosimilar DMARDs (bsDMARDs) all showed greater clinical benefits in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with high disease activity, but imposed higher costs than standard treatment. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 11 alternative treatment strategies for RA patients with high disease activity whose treatment with three conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) failed. Methods: A Markov model was constructed using a societal perspective to estimate relevant costs and health outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for a lifetime horizon (100 years), given a 3% annual discount. Alternative treatment strategies including five bDMARDs, two tsDMARDs, and four bsDMARDs in combination with methotrexate (MTX) were compared with the standard of care (SoC), i.e., cyclosporine and azathioprine. Direct and non-medical care costs were estimated by identifying the resources used, then multiplied by the standard costing menu in the year 2022. Utility and transitional probabilities were collected in three advanced tertiary hospitals. A network meta-analysis was used to estimate the efficacy of each treatment. Lifetime cost, QALYs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated and compared to the cost-effectiveness threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY gained (US $4,634, where 1 USD = 34.53 THB in 2022). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainties. Results: The bDMARDs, tsDMARDs or bsDMARDs combined with MTX provided 0.09 to 0.33 QALYs gained with additional costs of 550,986 to 2,096,744 THB (US $15,957 to $60,722) compared to the SoC. The ICER ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 million THB per QALY (US $65,935 to $234,996) compared to the SoC. None of these combinations was cost-effective in the Thai context. The results were sensitive to the mortality hazard ratio of patients with high disease activity. Conclusions: Combinations of MTX with either bDMARDs, tsDMARDs or bsDMARDs were not economically attractive compared to the standard practice. However, they reduced disease activity and improved patient quality of life. The price negotiation process for these treatments must be conducted to ensure their financial value and affordability before they are included in the pharmaceutical reimbursement list. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including certolizumab pegol (CZP), are effective treatment options for the management of non-radiographic spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). In the absence of head-to-head comparisons in nr-axSpA, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to better understand the comparative efficacy of CZP vs. other bDMARDs. Methods: Literature searches were conducted in October 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials in patients with nr-axSpA who had failed at least one non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and were treated with bDMARDs. Outcomes of interest included the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and spinal pain score. Comparative efficacy was examined using a series of Bucher ITCs in subgroups matched by prior exposure to bDMARDs, disease duration, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) levels/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) status, and timepoints, to ensure comparability between studies. Results: At 12–16 weeks, treatment with CZP was significantly more likely to achieve ASAS20/40 response and ASDAS-inactive disease status vs. etanercept (ETN), ixekizumab (IXE), and secukinumab (SEC). CZP showed statistically significant improvement in BASDAI, BASFI, and total spine pain score over adalimumab (ADA), ETN, and IXE, and in BASFI over SEC. Among patients with objective signs of inflammation (OSI; elevated CRP levels and/or inflammation on MRI at baseline), CZP had a statistically significant advantage over ETN and SEC (with or without loading dose) in achieving ASAS40, whereas the comparisons with other bDMARDs did not show any statistically significant differences. Conclusion: In the overall matched population, CZP performed significantly better than most comparators in improving the clinical outcomes. Among patients with OSI, CZP was found to be superior to SEC (in the MRI−/CRP + and MRI + /CRP− subgroups) and ETN (in the MRI + /CRP− subgroup) and it was comparable to golimumab and IXE across the different OSI subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Traditional dogma regarding management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with trigger digit symptoms holds that A1 pulley release should be avoided. Surgical release was thought to further destabilize the metacarpophalangeal joint. Biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have limited the development of hand deformities. Despite advances in RA treatment, many textbooks continue to discourage release of the A1 pulley in RA patients. The aim of this study was to determine if this belief is consistent with current trends in surgical management of trigger digits in patients with RA. Methods: Active Members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) were surveyed on their training and current practices as related to RA patients with trigger digits. Results: Five hundred three surveys were completed (16% response rate). During training, 55% of ASSH Members were taught to avoid releasing the A1 pulley in RA patients. Seventy-one percent of respondents currently release the A1 pulley in RA patients with no preexisting deformities, no tenosynovial thickening, or if tenosynovectomy and flexor digitorum superficialis slip excision fail to relieve triggering. Forty percent reported that their practice has evolved toward more frequent release of the A1 pulley in RA patients. Conclusion: The majority of ASSH Active Members were taught during training to avoid surgical release of the A1 pulley in RA patients to prevent acceleration of finger deformities. Indications and contraindications for A1 pulley release are evolving along with the improved natural history of RA associated with the use of biologic DMARDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The treatment goal for rheumatoid arthritis has undergone a dramatic change over recent years with the advent of biologic and targeted synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). This systematic review aims to discuss the comparative efficiency of new drugs versus the standard of care methotrexate. Methods: Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were searched, and 7072 records were retrieved. Randomized controlled trials published in the last five years with full‐text papers, blinded studies, and studies with an open‐label extension were included. Studies with a high risk of bias as calculated by the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) tool were excluded. The last database search was conducted on 21 August 2021. Results: Fifteen studies were identified and analyzed by categorizing drugs into Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies with other targets (anti‐GM‐CSF receptor, anti‐IL6 receptor, anti‐IL‐17 monoclonal antibodies), with a total of 7963 participants. Data were synthesized with tables and the PRISMA flow diagram. Our analysis included baricitinib, filgotinib, peficitinib, infliximab, certolizumab, sarilumab, tocilizumab namilumab, mavrilimumab, golimumab, and CNT06785. Conclusions: These studies showed that except for CNT 06785 (anti‐Interleukin 17A monoclonal antibody), biologic and targeted synthetic disease‐modifying drugs combined with methotrexate or as monotherapy yield better clinical and radiographical outcomes. This systematic review does not discuss biosimilars and the adverse effects of biologic drugs in detail. Infections remain a significant adverse drug reaction of monoclonal antibodies. However, these drugs play a crucial role in adequately managing this disease for patients with severe arthritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the experiences and perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on decision aid (DA)-led tapering of advanced therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Semistructured interviews were completed with patients and rheumatologists, embedded within a pilot study of DA-led tapering (ie, dose reduction) of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) in RA. All patients were in sustained (≥ 6 mos) remission and had chosen to reduce their therapy after a DA-led shared decision with their rheumatologist. The rheumatologists included those participating in the pilot (n = 4), and those who were not (n = 8). Reflexive thematic analysis of audiotaped and transcribed interviews identified themes in the group experiences., Results: Patients (n = 10, 6 female) unanimously found the DA easy to understand and felt confident in shared decision making about treatment tapering and managing flares. Rheumatologists' (n = 12, 5 female) perspectives on tapering bDMARDs and tsDMARDs varied widely, from very supportive to completely opposed, and influenced their views on the DA. Rheumatologists expressed concerns about patient comprehension, destabilizing a stable situation, risks of flare, and extending appointment times. Despite their initial reservations about sending the DA to all eligible patients ahead of appointments, 3 of 4 participating rheumatologists adopted this approach during the pilot, which had the benefit of facilitating patient-led conversations., Conclusion: A DA-led strategy for tapering advanced therapy in RA was acceptable to patients and feasible in practice. Sending patients a DA ahead of their appointment facilitated patient-led conversations about tapering., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To investigate the effect of the use of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) on surgical site infection (SSI) and delayed wound healing (DWH) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 965 elective orthopaedic procedures undertaken in RA patients. The incidences of SSI and DWH were compared between the bDMARDs user and non-user groups. Subsequently, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for SSI and DWH after propensity score (PS) matching. The incidence of postoperative flare-up was also examined., Results: In 965 procedures, SSI and DWH were identified in 12 and 28 cases, respectively. SSI and DWH were identified in 3 and 17 of 414 procedures treated with bDMARDs, respectively. Flare-up occurred in 21 cases. PS matching identified 315 cases in both groups, with no significant difference in incidence between the two groups. No risk factors for SSI were identified, whereas age, diabetes mellitus, foot and ankle surgery and a history of musculoskeletal-related infection were identified as risk factors for DWH., Conclusion: The use of bDMARDs was not associated with an increased incidence of SSI or DWH, with the incidence of flare-up being relatively low., (© Japan College of Rheumatology 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are widely used for the treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Since the introduction of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-) inhibitors, the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has been revolutionized. The approach of targeting TNF- has considerably improved the success of the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Their effectiveness has been extensively proven in randomized clinical trials and in clinical practice. Randomized clinical trials and post-marketing studies proved that patients undergoing TNF- inhibitors therapy are at increased risk of infectious disease, bacterial, viral, fungal, opportunistic, oncology and skin adverse effects such as psoriasis and angiitis of the skin. In this case report drug-induced cutaneous vasculitis developing during TNF- inhibitor (Etanercept) treatment for rheumatoid arthritis is described.

Objective: to study the safety and efficacy of the 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (PPV-23) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).Patients and methods. The study included 75 patients with definite diagnosis of SLE at the age of 19–68 years, 10 (13%) of them had high SLE activity, 18 (24%) – moderate, 42 (56%) – low, in 5 (7%) patients the disease was in remission. PPV-23 was injected subcutaneously in a single dose of 0.5 ml. In 60 patients the follow-up period was ≥12 months, in 15 – from 2 to 6 months. Patients were examined before and 1, 3 and 12 months after immunization.Results and discussion. In 38 (50.7%) patients, standard local vaccination reactions of mild and moderate severity were noted, in 1 (1.3%) – a general reaction of mild severity, in 2 (2.7%) – mild diarrhea during 1 day, in 1 (1.3%) – a hyperergic reaction of the Artyus phenomenon type, the symptoms were relieved within 7 days. During 12 months of follow-up, neither exacerbations of SLE, reliably associated with vaccination, nor new autoimmune phenomena, were detected. After 1 year of observation, the number of responders to vaccination was 58%, non-responders – 42%. The duration and activity of the disease, age over 50 years, glucocorticoid therapy > 10 mg per day, did not significantly affect the vaccine response. There was a decrease in the immune response in patients on biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) therapy compared to patients without such treatment (43 and 68% of cases, respectively), p=0.058. There was no difference between rituximab and belimumab treated subjects. There was a tendency for the prevalence of vaccination responses among patients, who received bDMARDs

Five jakinibs are approved for the treatment of rheumatic diseases. There has been a question of their relative safety to other medications since their approval. A literature search was conducted in Pub Med for the integrated safety databases of these molecules in their clinical trial program, registries, and insurance claims data and in a prospective head-to-head study compared to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in a high-risk population for cardiovascular and malignancy events. There were no differences found in the safety databases, registries or insurance claims data indicating jakinibs are more likely to cause major adverse cardiac events, malignancy, venous thrombotic episodes, infections, and mortality compared to other medications. The head-to-head trial found that there were numerically more of these events with the jakinib compared to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Cardiac events and malignancy occur more frequently in rheumatoid patients with active disease. Although the safety databases, claims data, and registries suggest that there is no difference in the risks with a jakinib versus biologics, the prospective safety study showed these events occur numerically higher in patients at the highest risk for these events. In this population, one should consider using a biologic before a jakinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common rheumatic disease children suffer from. Many questions arise regarding the risk of infection related to the disease and to the treatments with conventional and biological DMARDs. We aimed to assess the rate of infection in JIA patients treated with and without biologics and confirm the link between the infection and the disease activity. Patients and Methods: The risk of infection was evaluated in 2 groups (biological vs. conventional DMARDs). JIA activity was assessed using JADAS-10, physician and parent VAS. Results: Two minimal infections were noted under conventional DMARDs and 5 infections under biologics giving an infection rate ratio of 1.9. No correlation was found between the disease activity assessed by JADAS-10 and the risk of infection. The infection rate was higher in the biological group compared to the conventional DMARDs group (62.5% vs.33%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.6). Conclusions: Our results suggest no significant difference in infection rates between JIA subjects treated with and without biologics. Larger scale studies of the relationship between infection rates, type of treatment and disease activity are needed.

Introduction: In patients with inadequate response or intolerance to first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), guidelines recommend switching to an agent of different mechanism of action or to another bDMARD. However, the reasons behind switching between bDMARD/targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD are not well documented in many studies. The objective of this study was to assess the rheumatologists' perceptions and behaviors towards choice of initial b/tsDMARD treatment and reasons for switching between bDMARDs/tsDMARDs, in the context of present treatment patterns. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from the 12th Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Qualified rheumatologists involved in treatment decision-making for ≥ 10 patients a month completed patient record forms (PRFs). Patients aged ≥ 18 years with RA diagnosis and receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD were included. The outcomes assessed were proportion of patients receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at molecule and class levels; rheumatologist-reported reasons for choice of therapy; proportion of patients who switched bDMARDs/tsDMARDs; and rheumatologist-reported reasons for switching therapies. Results: Eighty-six rheumatologists completed PRFs for 1027 patients. Of these, 621 were receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at data collection. The majority (73%) of patients received first-line bDMARD/tsDMARD, and at first-line, 68% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and 21% received a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi). The response option of strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting first-line and second-line bDMARD/tsDMARD. A total of 163 patients had switched from first-line b/tsDMARD to second-line b/tsDMARD therapy. Of these, 44, 28, and 17% had switched from TNFi to another TNFi, TNFi to non-TNF biologic, and TNFi to JAKi, respectively. Lack of efficacy and worsening disease were the most frequent reasons for switching therapies. Conclusions: TNFis remain the most prescribed b/tsDMARD for first-line and second-line treatments. Strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting therapy and loss of efficacy was the primary reason for switching therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the utilization of baricitinib, an oral highly selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in an Italian real-world setting. Methods This observational retrospective analysis was based on data collected in selected Italian administrative databases. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of RA defined by hospitalization discharge diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 714.0) or by disease exemption code 006 for RA in 2018 were included. The index date (ID) was defined as the date of first prescription for a drug indicated for RA during the inclusion period. Patients without a prescription for biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) before the ID were considered to be b/tsDMARD naïve. A further analysis was performed on patients only receiving baricitinib. Results A total of 41,290 RA patients were enrolled, of whom 55.6% were not treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) or b/tsDMARDs, 39.4% were receiving therapy with csDMARDs, and 5.0% were using b/tsDMARDs. In the latter group, 2.7% (n = 56) were receiving therapy with baricitinib. In 2018, 13.2% of csDMARD-treated patients switched to b/tsDMARDs, of whom 4.3% (n = 93) of these switched to baricitinib. In total, 149 patients (mean age ± standard deviation 57.6 ± 12.1; 12.8% male) had a baricitinib prescription, of whom 51% were b/tsDMARD naïve. At baseline, 61.7% of baricitinib users were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, 26.2% were receiving combination therapy with corticosteroids, and 8.1% were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs; 4% were receiving baricitinib monotherapy. During follow-up, the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy increased to 38.9%, while 26.9, 18.8, and 15.4% of baricitinib users received combination therapy with corticosteroids, csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, and csDMARDs, respectively. Conclusion This study provides a current view of the treatment patterns in Italian patients with RA in a real-world setting of daily clinical practice, with a focus on baricitinib utilization.

Abstract Background Patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs with immunosuppressive effects, may be at increased risk of vaccine-preventable infections. This substudy assessed protective antibody responses to diphtheria and tetanus vaccination given prior to study enrolment in patients with pJIA. Findings This was a substudy of a 24-month, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, Phase III trial (NCT01844518) of subcutaneous abatacept in children with active pJIA (N = 219). Patients aged 2–5 years, with ≥2 continuous months of weekly weight-tiered (10– 0.1 IU/mL), and safety, were assessed. Overall, 29 patients were analyzed: 19 (65.5%), 1 (3.4%) and 9 (31.0%) patients had > 12, 6–12 and 2–

Copyright of Remedia is the property of Medical Tribune CZ, s.r.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives To evaluate 3-year outcomes of following a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy targeting low disease activity for patients with elderly-onset RA (EORA) and to confirm safety profile of T2T. Methods Treatment was adjusted to target low disease activity with conventional synthetic DMARDs, followed by biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in 197 MTX-naïve EORA patients (mean age 74.9 years) with moderate-to-high disease activity. Non-implementation of T2T was evaluated at week 12, 24, 36, 52, 76, 104 and 128. To evaluate risks of using MTX, bDMARDs and glucocorticoids, 2122 periods of 3 months each were analysed using Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression models. Results Of the patients, 84.7% received methotrexate, 34.0% glucocorticoids with DMARDs and 41.6% bDMARDs during the observation period. Sixty-nine of the 197 patients failed to adhere to T2T because of comorbidities or the patient's own decision: 33 failed once, 19 twice, 10 three times and 6 four times or more. Simplified disease activity index (SDAI) remission and HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤0.5 at 3 years were achieved in 57.8% and 70.3% of the 128 patients adhering to T2T, and 34.8% and 43.5% of the 69 patients who did not adhere to T2T, respectively, and these were significantly different. Eighty-nine serious adverse events (SAEs) of any type were reported in 61 patients. MTX, bDMARDs and glucocorticoid were not associated with SAEs when adjusted for mean SDAI during the observation period and comorbidities at baseline. Conclusion T2T strategy for EORA by using MTX and bDMARDs was effective with an acceptable safety profile. Adhering to T2T led to better outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To determine real-life biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) retention rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), explore reasons for switching and to compare results to previously published data.Methods: Time-to-event analysis for mean treatment duration (estimated as the Restricted Mean Survival Time), b/tsDMARD failure, and b/tsDMARDs switching was performed for 230 patients (n = 147 RA, 46 PsA, 37 AS) who commenced their first b/tsDMARD between 2008 and 2018. Patients were managed in a dedicated “biologics” clinic in a tertiary hospital; the choice of b/tsDMARD was clinician driven based on medical factors and patient preferences. The effect of covariates on switching risk was analysed by a conditional risk-set Cox proportional-hazards model. Treatment retention data was compared to a historical analysis (2002–2008).Results: The proportions remaining on treatment (retention) were similar, throughout follow-up, for the first, second and third b/tsDMARDs across all patients (p = 0.46). When compared to RA patients, the risk of b/tsDMARD failure was halved in PsA patients [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.50], but no different in AS patients (HR = 1.0). The respective restricted mean (95%CI) treatment durations, estimated at 5 years of follow-up, were 3.1 (2.9, 3.4), 4.1 (3.7, 4.6), and 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) years, for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. Age, gender, disease duration, smoking status and the use of concomitant csDMARDS were not associated with the risk of bDMARD failure. The most common reasons for switching in the first and subsequent years were secondary (n = 62) and primary (n = 35) failure. Comparison with historical data indicated no substantive differences in switching of the first biologic for RA and PsA.Conclusion: Similar retention rates of the second and third compared to the first b/tsDMARD in RA, PsA, and AS support a strategy of differential b/tsDMARDs use informed by patient presentation. Despite greater availability of b/tsDMARDs with differing mechanisms of action, retention rates of the first b/tsDMARD remain similar to previous years.

Background/aim: To evaluate treatment adherence and predictors of drug discontinuation among patients with inflammatory arthritis receiving bDMARDs within the first 100 days after the announcement of the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods: A total of 1871 patients recorded in TReasure registry for whom advanced therapy was prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) within the 3 months (6–9 months for rituximab) before the declaration of COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated, and 1394 (74.5%) responded to the phone survey. Patients’ data regarding demographic, clinical characteristics and disease activity before the pandemic were recorded. The patients were inquired about the diagnosis of COVID-19, the rate of continuation on bDMARDs, the reasons for treatment discontinuation, if any, and the current general disease activity (visual analog scale, [VAS]). Results: A total of 1394 patients (493 RA [47.3% on anti-TNF] patients and 901 SpA [90.0% on anti-TNF] patients) were included in the study. Overall, 2.8% of the patients had symptoms suggesting COVID-19, and 2 (0.15%) patients had PCR-confirmed COVID-19. Overall, 18.1% of all patients (13.8% of the RA and 20.5% of the SpA; p = 0.003) discontinued their bDMARDs. In the SpA group, the patients who discontinued bDMARDs were younger (40 [21–73] vs. 44 years [20–79]; p = 0.005) and had higher general disease activity; however, no difference was relevant for RA patients. Conclusion: Although the COVID-19 was quite uncommon in the first 100 days of the pandemic, nearly one-fifth of the patients discontinued bDMARDs within this period. The long-term effects of the pandemic should be monitored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The impact of smoking on TNF inhibition (TNFi) therapy is unclear. We examined the effect of smoking on all-cause and cause-specific TNFi discontinuation in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods We used longitudinal data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS). Patients fulfilling the ASAS criteria for axSpA, who started their first TNFi, were eligible for analysis. Inverse-probability weights were used to balance differences in baseline disease severity and other confounders. We used marginal structural Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for TNFi discontinuation according to smoking status. In analyses of cause-specific discontinuation, competing risk events were considered as censoring, using inverse-probability weights. Results A total of 758 participants were included in the analysis (66% male, mean age 45 years), providing 954 patient-years of follow-up. TNFi was discontinued in 174 (23%) patients, among whom 26% stopped due to infections, 20% due to other adverse events and 44% due to inefficacy or other reasons. Thirty-four percent were current smokers and 30% ex-smokers. Compared to never smokers, current smokers’ risk of TNFi discontinuation was HR 0.79 (95%CI 0.53 to 1.20) and ex-smokers HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.45 to 1.04). Our data did not show evidence that current smoking influenced discontinuation due to infections (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.40 to 1.54), other adverse events (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.78) or inefficacy/other causes (HR 1.44, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.41). Conclusion Baseline smoking status did not impact TNFi discontinuation in this UK cohort of axSpA participants.

BackgroundThe course of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been of special concern in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) due to the immune dysregulation that may be associated with these diseases and the medications used for IRDs, that may affect innate immune responses.ObjectiveIn this cohort study, we aimed to report the disease characteristics and variables associated with COVID-19 outcome among Turkish patients with IRDs.MethodsBetween April and June, 2020, 167 adult IRD patients with COVID-19 were registered from 31 centers in 14 cities in Turkey. Disease outcome was classified in 4 categories; (i) outpatient management, (ii) hospitalization without oxygen requirement, (iii) hospitalization with oxygen requirement, and (iv) intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine variables associated with a worse outcome.Results165 patients (mean age: 50 ± 15.6 years, 58.2% female) were included. Twenty-four patients (14.5%) recovered under outpatient management, 141 (85.5%) were hospitalized, 49 (30%) required inpatient oxygen support, 22 (13%) were treated in the ICU (17 received invasive mechanic ventilation) and 16 (10%) died. Glucocorticoid use (OR: 4.53, 95%CI 1.65-12.76), chronic kidney disease (OR: 12.8, 95%CI 2.25-103.5), pulmonary disease (OR: 2.66, 95%CI 1.08-6.61) and obesity (OR: 3.7, 95%CI 1.01-13.87) were associated with a worse outcome. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) do not seem to affect COVID-19 outcome while conventional synthetic DMARDs may have a protective effect (OR: 0.36, 95%CI 0.17-0.75). Estimates for the associations between IRD diagnoses and outcome were inconclusive.ConclusionsAmong IRD patients with COVID-19, comorbidities and glucocorticoid use were associated with a worse outcome, while biologic DMARDs do not seem to be associated with a worse outcome.

Background: The course of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been of special concern in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) due to the immune dysregulation that may be associated with these diseases and the medications used for IRDs, that may affect innate immune responses. Objective: In this cohort study, we aimed to report the disease characteristics and variables associated with COVID-19 outcome among Turkish patients with IRDs. Methods: Between April and June, 2020, 167 adult IRD patients with COVID-19 were registered from 31 centers in 14 cities in Turkey. Disease outcome was classified in 4 categories; (i) outpatient management, (ii) hospitalization without oxygen requirement, (iii) hospitalization with oxygen requirement, and (iv) intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine variables associated with a worse outcome. Results: 165 patients (mean age: 50 ± 15.6 years, 58.2% female) were included. Twenty-four patients (14.5%) recovered under outpatient management, 141 (85.5%) were hospitalized, 49 (30%) required inpatient oxygen support, 22 (13%) were treated in the ICU (17 received invasive mechanic ventilation) and 16 (10%) died. Glucocorticoid use (OR: 4.53, 95%CI 1.65-12.76), chronic kidney disease (OR: 12.8, 95%CI 2.25-103.5), pulmonary disease (OR: 2.66, 95%CI 1.08-6.61) and obesity (OR: 3.7, 95%CI 1.01-13.87) were associated with a worse outcome. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) do not seem to affect COVID-19 outcome while conventional synthetic DMARDs may have a protective effect (OR: 0.36, 95%CI 0.17-0.75). Estimates for the associations between IRD diagnoses and outcome were inconclusive. Conclusions: Among IRD patients with COVID-19, comorbidities and glucocorticoid use were associated with a worse outcome, while biologic DMARDs do not seem to be associated with a worse outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Saeed Akhlaghi,1 Maryam Sahebari,2 Mahmoud Mahmoodi,1 Mehdi Yaseri,1 Mohammad Ali Mansournia,1 Houshang Rafatpanah,3 Hojjat Zeraati1 1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 2Rheumatic Diseases Research Center (RDRC), Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran; 3Inflammation and Inflammatory Diseases Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran Purpose: One of the most important long-term side effects of therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the elevation of liver function tests, with earlier studies reporting an elevation of more than 1× the upper limit of normal (>1 × ULN). The current study expands the literature by comparing the trends of transaminase changes caused by conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).Patients and methods: The drug categories examined were methotrexate (MTX) and all other nonbiologic DMARDs. Where RA patients exhibited inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs), we added biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) to the treatment. We compared the trend of changes in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) in the patients receiving MTX with the trend observed in the patients whose treatment encompassed both bDMARDs and MTX. The comparison was conducted using random intercept models, which are a type of linear mixed effects model.Results: This work involved 512 RA patients (MTX: 450, MTX + infliximab [INF]: 26, MTX + etanercept [ETA]: 36), whose ALT and/or AST levels were measured in 1,786 visits (MTX: 1,543, MTX + INF: 107, MTX + ETA: 136). ALT and/or AST elevations greater than 1 × ULN were observed in 344 (19.3%) visits (MTX: 295 [19.1%], MTX + INF/ETA: 49 [20.2%]). In this study, the trends of ALT and AST changes increased when receiving MTX, while the INF/ETA addition decreased these trends. The random intercept models indicated that changes in the mean ALT levels were significantly different over the time for MTX and MTX + INF/ETA groups (β [SE] =-0.190 [0.093], P= 0.040) but changes in the mean AST levels were nonsignificantly different over the time for such groups (β [SE] =-0.099 [0.064], P=0.120).Conclusion: Despite a higher incidence of elevated transaminases during the use of MTX + INF/ETA, the combination of INF/ETA with MTX reduced transaminase levels and returned ALT levels to normal concentrations. Keywords: longitudinal, ALT, AST, DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, MTX

Sharan K Rai,1 Alyssa Howren,1,2 Elizabeth S Wilcox,3 Anne F Townsend,1,4 Carlo A Marra,1,5 J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta,1,6 Mary A De Vera1,2 1Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 4University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK; 5School of Pharmacy, Otago University, Dunedin, New Zealand; 6Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Objective: Medication non-adherence is a substantial problem among patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Our aim was to explore IA patients’ perspectives on strategies to support medication adherence.Methods: We collaborated with a leading arthritis patient group and conducted a qualitative study on individuals with IA who were taking at least one medication for their IA. An experienced facilitator led participants through a focus group exercise where participants were asked to design, and then discuss, strategies and/or tools supporting medication use. We applied thematic analysis using an iterative, constant comparative approach.Results: We studied six focus groups with 27 participants diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and comparatively under-represented conditions in this research area such as Sjögren’s syndrome. Five themes emerged throughout the analysis. Two themes – 1) adapting to life with IA and 2) the complexities and dynamic nature of taking medications – describe learning to live with a chronic condition and the challenges encountered when using long-term medications. Three themes – 3) developing lifestyle strategies for medication use (eg, having physical reminders and prompts), 4) becoming informed about medications (eg, information at time of diagnosis, means of receiving information) and 5) receiving support (eg, from health care team members, from family) – offer perspectives on facilitators to medication use. From the relationship between the latter themes, a framework was developed that encompasses means of receiving information and support as actionable targets for patient-oriented adherence interventions for IA.Conclusion: This patient-oriented study highlights the importance of developing timely adherence interventions for IA. Our findings also led to a framework describing means of receiving information, such as through digital media and support, including from health care team members and family, as actionable targets for patient-oriented adherence interventions for IA. Keywords: inflammatory arthritis, medication adherence, concordance, facilitators, barriers, qualitative research, synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs

There have been major advances in the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with the introduction of effective biologic agents targeting TNF and IL-17A. Clinicians now have more choice but, despite treatment recommendations, are still faced with significant uncertainty when deciding on the optimal treatment strategy for an individual patient in clinical practice. Management of axSpA typically requires both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. NSAIDs remain the first line drug therapies for axSpA with proven efficacy for symptomatic management but uncertainty remains regarding their optimal long-term use relating to radiographic progression and safety in axSpA. To-date there are no head-to-head trials of biologics in axSpA. Clinicians need to consider other factors, including extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities, safety and radiographic progression when deciding on which biologic to recommend for an individual patient. This article will explore the evidence relating to these factors and highlight areas of unmet need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the utilization of baricitinib, an oral highly selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in an Italian real-world setting. Methods: This observational retrospective analysis was based on data collected in selected Italian administrative databases. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of RA defined by hospitalization discharge diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 714.0) or by disease exemption code 006 for RA in 2018 were included. The index date (ID) was defined as the date of first prescription for a drug indicated for RA during the inclusion period. Patients without a prescription for biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) before the ID were considered to be b/tsDMARD naïve. A further analysis was performed on patients only receiving baricitinib. Results: A total of 41,290 RA patients were enrolled, of whom 55.6% were not treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) or b/tsDMARDs, 39.4% were receiving therapy with csDMARDs, and 5.0% were using b/tsDMARDs. In the latter group, 2.7% (n = 56) were receiving therapy with baricitinib. In 2018, 13.2% of csDMARD-treated patients switched to b/tsDMARDs, of whom 4.3% (n = 93) of these switched to baricitinib. In total, 149 patients (mean age ± standard deviation 57.6 ± 12.1; 12.8% male) had a baricitinib prescription, of whom 51% were b/tsDMARD naïve. At baseline, 61.7% of baricitinib users were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, 26.2% were receiving combination therapy with corticosteroids, and 8.1% were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs; 4% were receiving baricitinib monotherapy. During follow-up, the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy increased to 38.9%, while 26.9, 18.8, and 15.4% of baricitinib users received combination therapy with corticosteroids, csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, and csDMARDs, respectively. Conclusion: This study provides a current view of the treatment patterns in Italian patients with RA in a real-world setting of daily clinical practice, with a focus on baricitinib utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) have an increased risk for tuberculosis (TB). The use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and glucocorticoids in these patients has been associated with an increased prevalence of latent TB reactivation. Over the last few years, several biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), other than TNFi (e.g. rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab, secukinumab) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) [e.g. apremilast, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors] have been used for the treatment of patients with ARD. For many of these drugs, especially the newer ones like JAK inhibitors or antibodies against interleukin (IL)-23, most data stem from randomized clinical trials and few are available from real life clinical experience. We sought to review the current evidence for TB risk in patients with ARD treated with tsDMARDs or bDMARDs, other than TNFi. It seems that some of these drugs are associated with a lower TB risk, indirectly compared with TNFi treatment. In fact, it appears that rituximab, apremilast and inhibitors of IL-17 and IL-23 might be safer, while more data are needed for JAK inhibitors. As seen in TNFi, risk for TB is more pronounced in TB-endemic areas. Screening for latent TB must precede initiation of any tsDMARDs or bDMARDs. The growing use of non-TNFi agents has raised the need for more real-life studies that would compare the risk for TB between TNFi and other treatment modalities for ARD. Knowledge about the TB-safety profile of these drugs could help in the decision of drug choice in patients with confirmed latent TB infection or in TB endemic areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs with immunosuppressive effects, may be at increased risk of vaccine-preventable infections. This substudy assessed protective antibody responses to diphtheria and tetanus vaccination given prior to study enrolment in patients with pJIA. Findings: This was a substudy of a 24-month, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, Phase III trial (NCT01844518) of subcutaneous abatacept in children with active pJIA (N = 219). Patients aged 2–5 years, with ≥2 continuous months of weekly weight-tiered (10–< 25 kg [50 mg], 25–< 50 kg [87.5 mg]) subcutaneous abatacept treatment (with/without methotrexate and/or low-dose corticosteroids), who received diphtheria/tetanus vaccine prior to enrolment, were eligible. Protective antibody levels to diphtheria/tetanus (> 0.1 IU/mL), and safety, were assessed. Overall, 29 patients were analyzed: 19 (65.5%), 1 (3.4%) and 9 (31.0%) patients had > 12, 6–12 and 2–< 6 months of abatacept exposure, respectively. All patients had protective antibody levels to tetanus and 26 (89.7%) patients had protective antibody levels to diphtheria. Of the 3 patients without protective antibody levels to diphtheria, each had an antibody level of 0.1 IU/mL, bordering the lower threshold of protection. Concomitant use of methotrexate and/or low-dose corticosteroids had no evident effect on antibody levels. No unexpected adverse events, including cases of diphtheria or tetanus, were reported during the 24-month period. Conclusions: Patients aged 2–5 years with pJIA who received 2–24 months of weekly subcutaneous abatacept, with or without concomitant methotrexate and/or low-dose corticosteroids, maintained effective diphtheria and tetanus vaccination protection without new safety signals. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844518); registered May 1, 2013; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01844518?term=NCT01844518&rank=1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the drug treatment trends in patients with incident juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in 2006–2014. In Finland, patients are entitled to a special reimbursement for medication if their condition meets certain criteria. We gathered all reimbursement decisions with the ICD-10 diagnosis of M08 for patients under 16 years of age from a nationwide register maintained by Kela, the Social Institution of Finland. A total of 2439 incident cases of JIA were identified. We surveyed their reimbursable drugs purchased for the first time for JIA upon a doctor's prescription in 3-year cohorts (2006–2008, 2009–2011, 2012–2014). Changes of drug treatment for JIA became more active during our study years. Between 2006–2008 and 2011–2014, the introduction of methotrexate (MTX) for the first time within the first 3 months increased from 73% (2006–2008) to 90% (2011–2014) of the patients, IRR (incidence rate ratio) was 1.23 (95% CI 1.10–1.37). The use of parenteral MTX increased even more; IRR was 1.97 (95% CI 1.61–2.41). During the first 2 years of their disease, 18% of the first cohort received subcutaneous biologic agents, while the corresponding proportion in the last cohort was 31%. Biologic agents were more likely to be introduced for patients with early (3 months) MTX administration than for patients without early MTX introduction; HR (hazard ratio) 2.19 (95% CI 1.63–2.93). During the follow-up, MTX administration became more prevalent for the treatment of JIA soon after diagnosis, mostly because of the increase in the use of parenteral MTX. Key Points • The drug therapy for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis has changed during recent years. • Methotrexate, some other conventional DMARDs, and biologic DMARDs are introduced earlier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has raised concerns about the risk of malignancies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, the association between biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and malignancy in previous reports remains controversial. Therefore we aimed to estimate the incidence of malignancy in early RA patients and to evaluate the relative risk of malignancy with use of bDMARDs. Methods A retrospective cohort of incident RA patients was established using the Korean National Claims Database. Among a total of 14,081 RA patients identified, 1684 patients with a history of malignancy were excluded. We calculated the incidence rate of overall and individual malignancies. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of malignancies in bDMARD users was compared to that in nonusers. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of bDMARDs on the development of malignancies in early RA patients. Results A total of 12,397 early RA patients without a history of malignancy were enrolled. During 41,599 person-years (PY) of follow-up, 725 malignancies developed in 561 patients (174.3/10,000 PY) and 21 hematologic malignancies developed (5.0/10,000 PY). Patients treated with bDMARDs had a significantly lower incidence of overall malignancy compared to those not treated with bDMARDs (SIR 0.45 (95% CI 0.28–0.70)). However, this relationship was not significant with regard to hematologic malignancies (SIR 2.65 (95% CI 0.55–7.76)). On multivariable analysis, bDMARD use was a protective factor against the development of overall malignancy (odds ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.25–0.73)). However, bDMARD use had no significant protective effect against the development of hematologic malignancies (odds ratio 1.69 (95% CI 0.38–7.59)). Conclusions In early RA patients, bDMARD use decreases the overall risk of developing malignancies; however, it does not affect the risk of developing hematologic malignancies.

Purpose of Review: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an immune-mediated systemic inflammatory disorder with heterogeneous clinical features. Treatment for PsA has progressed rapidly, especially over the past two decades. Herein we review relevant studies and key developments in treatment options for PsA from the past 5 years. Recent Findings: Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate showed some efficacy for several domains of PsA, albeit less than that achieved with TNF inhibitors (TNFi). TNFi have been shown to be efficacious in treatment across all domains of PsA, particularly preventing radiographic damage, and are highly efficient early in the disease course. Inhibitors of IL-12/23, IL-17A, IL-23, phosphodiesterase 4, T cell costimulation, and janus kinases (JAK) have proven efficacious in the treatment of peripheral arthritis of PsA patients. The introduction of biosimilars to TNFi is expected to impact the treatment algorithm for PsA treatment by increasing access to biologic drugs. Newer treatment modalities including IL-23-specific inhibitors, IL-17A and IL-17F dual inhibitors, and jakinibs (janus kinase inhibitors) with different specificity are currently being developed for treatment of PsA. Summary: The recent development of new therapeutic agents for PsA has led to better control of PsA across all of its disease domains. The future of PsA management will likely usher in treatment with different mechanisms of action, allow for more access to care, and hopefully see the possibility of precision medicine to help select the optimal treatment approach for individual PsA patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Currently, the therapeutic management of Still's disease, a multisystemic inflammatory rare disorder, is directed to target the inflammatory symptoms and signs of patients. The treatment varies from glucocorticoids to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), both conventional synthetic and biological (bDMARDs). Usually, in refractory patients, bDMARDs are administered., Areas Covered: Among bDMARDs, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are frequently used, as data reported from both clinical trials and 'real-life' experiences. Recently, innovative therapeutic strategies have suggested an early administration of bDMARDs to increase the rate of clinical response and drug-free remission. Some new targets have been also proposed targeting IL-18, IFN-γ, and JAK/STAT pathway, which could be applied to Still's disease and its life-threatening evolution., Expert Opinion: Many lines of evidence improved the knowledge about the therapeutic management of Still's disease with bDMARDs. However, many unmet needs may be still highlighted which could provide the basis to arrange further specific research in increasing the rate of clinical response. In fact, Still's disease remains a highly heterogeneous disease suggesting possible diverse underlying pathogenic mechanisms, at least partially, and consequent different therapeutic strategies. A better patient stratification may help in arranging specific studies to improve the long-term outcome of Still's disease.

The objective of this guideline is to provide up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for the management of SLE that builds upon the existing treatment guideline for adults living with SLE published in 2017. This will incorporate advances in the assessment, diagnosis, monitoring, non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of SLE. General approaches to management as well as organ-specific treatment, including lupus nephritis and cutaneous lupus, will be covered. This will be the first guideline in SLE using a whole life course approach from childhood through adolescence and adulthood. The guideline will be developed with people with SLE as an important target audience in addition to healthcare professionals. It will include guidance related to emerging approved therapies and account for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Health Service England clinical commissioning policies and national guidance relevant to SLE. The guideline will be developed using the methods and rigorous processes outlined in 'Creating Clinical Guidelines: Our Protocol' by the British Society for Rheumatology., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)