Search

Objectives: We report the safety, tolerability and efficacy of tofacitinib in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in an ongoing long-term extension (LTE) study., Methods: Patients (2-<18 years) with JIA who completed phase 1/3 index studies or discontinued for reasons excluding treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) entered the LTE study and received tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day or equivalent weight-based doses. Safety outcomes included AEs, serious AEs and AEs of special interest. Efficacy outcomes included improvement since tofacitinib initiation per the JIA-American College of Rheumatology (ACR)70/90 criteria, JIA flare rate and disease activity measured by Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS)27, with inactive disease corresponding to JADAS ≤1.0., Results: Of 225 patients with JIA (median (range) duration of treatment, 41.6 (1-103) months), 201 (89.3%) had AEs; 34 (15.1%) had serious AEs. 10 patients developed serious infections; three had herpes zoster. Two patients newly developed uveitis. Among patients with polyarticular course JIA, JIA-ACR70/90 response rates were 60.0% (78 of 130) and 33.6% (47 of 140), respectively, at month 1, and generally improved over time. JIA flare events generally occurred in <5% of patients through to month 48. Observed mean (SE) JADAS27 was 22.0 (0.6) at baseline, 6.2 (0.7) at month 1 and 2.8 (0.5) at month 48, with inactive disease in 28.8% (36 of 125) of patients at month 1 and 46.8% (29 of 82) at month 48., Conclusions: In this interim analysis of LTE study data in patients with JIA, safety findings were consistent with the known profile of tofacitinib, and efficacy was maintained up to month 48., Trial Registration Number: NCT01500551., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HIB has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Pfizer; is an employee of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; has received consulting fees or other remuneration from AbbVie, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Biocon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cerecor, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, R-Pharm and Sobi; and is a member of speaker bureaus for Novartis and Pfizer. JDA has received honorarium from Novartis. JFB has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche. ALB is a member of speaker bureaus for AbbVie, Novartis and Roche. RC has received consulting fees or other remuneration from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. GS has received consulting fees or other remuneration from Novartis and Sobi and research support from IpiNovyx. CN has received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Pfizer and UCB. MV-DM is an employee of Clínica de Investigacion en Reumatologia y Obesidad, SC. HP, CC, CWh, KeK and SL are employees and stockholders of Pfizer. AW was an employee and stockholder of Pfizer at the time of this analysis. AM has received consulting fees or other remuneration from Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen and Pfizer. DL’s institution, the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UBC; and has received consulting fees or other remuneration from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UBC. DL is also a data safety and monitoring board member or chairperson for the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Arthritis Society. NR has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from Ablynx, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GS, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie and Sobi. The IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, where NR works as a full-time public employee, has received contributions from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Sobi; this funding has been reinvested for the research activities of the hospital in a fully independent manner, without any commitment with third parties. EA-A, GC, WDLP, LJ, ÖK, KaK, RR-C, JCRR, LW-W, JEW and CWo have declared no conflicts., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

Objective: To evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability in children with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) or polyarticular JIA treated with tocilizumab., Methods: Secondary analyses of two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of intravenous tocilizumab in children with active systemic JIA or polyarticular JIA were conducted. Patient-reported outcomes of disability (Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire [C-HAQ]), HRQoL (Child Health Questionnaire Parent Form 50 [CHQ-P50], health concepts, physical summary score [CHQ-P50-PhS], psychosocial summary score [CHQ-P50-PsS]), pain, and well-being (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]) were measured at weeks 0 and 12 for systemic JIA, weeks 16 and 40 for polyarticular JIA, and week 104 for both JIA subgroups., Results: The trial included 112 patients with systemic JIA and 188 patients with polyarticular JIA. In patients with polyarticular JIA, the mean ± SD C-HAQ score decreased from 1.39 ± 0.74 at baseline to 0.67 ± 0.65 at week 16 (P < 0.001). In patients with systemic JIA, the mean ± SD CHQ-P50-PhS improved more with tocilizumab therapy than with placebo at week 12 (7.3 ± 10.2 versus 2.4 ± 10.6) (P < 0.05). Almost all mean CHQ-P50 health concept scores, CHQ-P50-PsS, and CHQ-P50-PhS improved (P ≤ 0.002) by week 104 for patients with systemic JIA. Patients with polyarticular JIA and patients with systemic JIA showed significant reductions in disability (mean ± SD C-HAQ scores of -1.09 ± 0.71 and -1.17 ± 0.80, respectively), improvements in well-being (mean ± SD well-being VAS scores of -43.76 ± 26.61 and -51.53 ± 23.57, respectively), and decreases in pain (mean ± SD pain VAS scores of -41.56 ± 31.06 and -51.26 ± 26.79, respectively) (P < 0.001); in patients with polyarticular JIA and patients with systemic JIA who were treated with tocilizumab, 92.9% of polyarticular JIA patients and 96.8% of systemic JIA patients reported no more than minimal pain (a score of ≤35 mm on the VAS) at week 104., Conclusion: Tocilizumab treatment was associated with significantly reduced disability and pain and improved HRQoL in patients with systemic JIA and polyarticular JIA., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To build a prediction model for uveitis in children with JIA for use in current clinical practice., Methods: Data from the international observational Pharmachild registry were used. Adjusted risk factors as well as predictors for JIA-associated uveitis (JIA-U) were determined using multivariable logistic regression models. The prediction model was selected based on the Akaike information criterion. Bootstrap resampling was used to adjust the final prediction model for optimism., Results: JIA-U occurred in 1102 of 5529 JIA patients (19.9%). The majority of patients that developed JIA-U were female (74.1%), ANA positive (66.0%) and had oligoarthritis (59.9%). JIA-U was rarely seen in patients with systemic arthritis (0.5%) and RF positive polyarthritis (0.2%). Independent risk factors for JIA-U were ANA positivity [odds ratio (OR): 1.88 (95% CI: 1.54, 2.30)] and HLA-B27 positivity [OR: 1.48 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.95)] while older age at JIA onset was an independent protective factor [OR: 0.84 (9%% CI: 0.81, 0.87)]. On multivariable analysis, the combination of age at JIA onset [OR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.86)], JIA category and ANA positivity [OR: 2.02 (95% CI: 1.73, 2.36)] had the highest discriminative power among the prediction models considered (optimism-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.75)., Conclusion: We developed an easy to read model for individual patients with JIA to inform patients/parents on the probability of developing uveitis., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: This ongoing Phase-2, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of intravenous belimumab in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE)., Methods: Patients (5 to 17 years) were randomised to belimumab 10 mg/kg intravenous or placebo every 4 weeks, plus standard SLE therapy. Primary endpoint: SLE Responder Index (SRI4) response rate (Week 52). Key major secondary endpoints: proportion of patients achieving the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation/American College of Rheumatology (PRINTO/ACR) response using 50 and '30 alternative' definitions (Week 52), and sustained response (Weeks 44 to 52) by SRI4 and Parent Global Assessment of well-being (Parent-global). Safety and pharmacokinetics were assessed. Study not powered for statistical testing., Results: Ninety-three patients were randomised (belimumab, n=53; placebo, n=40). At Week 52, there were numerically more SRI4 responders with belimumab versus placebo (52.8% vs 43.6%; OR 1.49 (95% CI 0.64 to 3.46)). PRINTO/ACR 30 alternative (52.8% vs 27.5%; OR 2.92 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.17)) and PRINTO/ACR 50 (60.4% vs 35.0%; OR 2.74 (95% CI 1.15 to 6.54)) responses were more frequent with belimumab than placebo, as were sustained responses for SRI4 (belimumab, 43.4%; placebo, 41.0%; OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.52)) and Parent-global (belimumab, 59.1%; placebo, 33.3%; OR 3.49 (95% CI 1.23 to 9.91)). Serious adverse events were reported in 17.0% of belimumab patients and 35.0% of placebo patients; one death occurred (placebo). Week-52, geometric mean (95% CI) belimumab trough concentration was 56.2 (45.2 to 69.8) µg/mL., Conclusion: The belimumab intravenous pharmacokinetics and benefit-risk profile in cSLE are consistent with adult belimumab studies and the 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks dose is appropriate., Trial Registration Number: NCT01649765., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DB, KC, AH, AN, DAR, BJ and HS are employees of GSK and hold shares/options in the company; M-LW is a former employee of GSK; HIB has served the speakers bureau of GSK, Roche and Novartis, has been a consultant to Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, BMS, Celgene, EMD Serono, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Biosciences GmbH. Payments are made to CCHMC, the employer of HIB; AM has received honoraria for consultancies (<10 000 US$ each) from Eli-Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and AbbVie; DML has received honoraria and/or consulting fees (<10 000 US$ each) from AbbVie, Janssen and Sobi; NR has received speaker’s bureau and reimbursement of travel expenses from GSK, honoraria for consultancies (<10 000 US$ each) from Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi and Takeda. The IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini (IGG), where NR works as full-time public employee has received contributions (>10 000 US$ each) from BMS, Eli-Lilly, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Sobi. This funding has been reinvested for research activities of the hospital in a fully independent manner, without any commitment with third parties.; JA has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Gebro, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sobi; CA-M has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Takeda; ICP has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sobi; MS has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus (<10 000 USD each) from AbbVie, Medac Pharm and Novartis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is regarded as a prototype autoimmune disease because it can serve as a means for studying differences between ethnic minorities and sex. Traditionally, all Hispanics have been bracketed within the same ethnic group, but there are differences between Hispanics from Spain and those from Latin America, not to mention other Spanish-speaking populations., Objectives: This study aimed to determine the demographic and clinical characteristics, severity, activity, damage, mortality and co-morbidity of SLE in Hispanics belonging to the two ethnic groups resident in Spain, and to identify any differences., Methods: This was an observational, multi-centre, retrospective study. The demographic and clinical variables of patients with SLE from 45 rheumatology units were collected. The study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Hispanic patients from the registry were divided into two groups: Spaniards or European Caucasians (EC) and Latin American mestizos (LAM). Comparative univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were carried out., Results: A total of 3490 SLE patients were included, 90% of whom were female; 3305 (92%) EC and 185 (5%) LAM. LAM patients experienced their first lupus symptoms four years earlier than EC patients and were diagnosed and included in the registry younger, and their SLE was of a shorter duration. The time in months from the first SLE symptoms to diagnosis was longer in EC patients, as were the follow-up periods. LAM patients exhibited higher prevalence rates of myositis, haemolytic anaemia and nephritis, but there were no differences in histological type or serositis. Anti-Sm, anti-Ro and anti-RNP antibodies were more frequently found in LAM patients. LAM patients also had higher levels of disease activity, severity and hospital admissions. However, there were no differences in damage index, mortality or co-morbidity index. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for confounders, in several models the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for a Katz severity index >3 in LAM patients was 1.45 (1.038-2.026; p  = 0.02). This difference did not extend to activity levels (i.e. SLEDAI >3; 0.98 (0.30-1.66))., Conclusion: SLE in Hispanic EC patients showed clinical differences compared to Hispanic LAM patients. The latter more frequently suffered nephritis and higher severity indices. This study shows that where lupus is concerned, not all Hispanics are equal.

This article estimates the frequency of cardiovascular (CV) events that occurred after diagnosis in a large Spanish cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and investigates the main risk factors for atherosclerosis. RELESSER is a nationwide multicenter, hospital-based registry of SLE patients. This is a cross-sectional study. Demographic and clinical variables, the presence of traditional risk factors, and CV events were collected. A CV event was defined as a myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, and/or peripheral artery disease. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the possible risk factors for atherosclerosis. From 2011 to 2012, 3658 SLE patients were enrolled. Of these, 374 (10.9%) patients suffered at least a CV event. In 269 (7.4%) patients, the CV events occurred after SLE diagnosis (86.2% women, median [interquartile range] age 54.9 years [43.2-66.1], and SLE duration of 212.0 months [120.8-289.0]). Strokes (5.7%) were the most frequent CV event, followed by ischemic heart disease (3.8%) and peripheral artery disease (2.2%). Multivariate analysis identified age (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.03 [1.02-1.04]), hypertension (1.71 [1.20-2.44]), smoking (1.48 [1.06-2.07]), diabetes (2.2 [1.32-3.74]), dyslipidemia (2.18 [1.54-3.09]), neurolupus (2.42 [1.56-3.75]), valvulopathy (2.44 [1.34-4.26]), serositis (1.54 [1.09-2.18]), antiphospholipid antibodies (1.57 [1.13-2.17]), low complement (1.81 [1.12-2.93]), and azathioprine (1.47 [1.04-2.07]) as risk factors for CV events. We have confirmed that SLE patients suffer a high prevalence of premature CV disease. Both traditional and nontraditional risk factors contribute to this higher prevalence. Although it needs to be verified with future studies, our study also shows-for the first time-an association between diabetes and CV events in SLE patients.

Glucocorticoids, aspirin, conventional antimalarials and immunosuppressants are the mainstay of treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). Until recently, the first three were the only agents approved for treatment. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of the immune system has identified new therapeutic targets. In fact, belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody to BLyS inhibitor has become, in recent months, the first drug approved for the treatment of SLE since 1957, underscoring difficulties of all kinds, including economic and organizational ones inherent to clinical trials on this disease. Many other molecules are in various stages of development and soon will have concrete results. In this review, we examined the mechanism of action and most relevant clinical data for these molecules., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

Glucocorticoids, aspirin, antimalarials and conventional immunosuppressants are the mainstay of treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). Until recently, the first three were the only agents approved for treatment. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of the immune system has identified new therapeutic targets. In fact, belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody to BLyS inhibitor has become, in recent months, the first drug approved for the treatment of SLE since 1957, underscoring difficulties of all kinds, including economic and organizational ones inherent to clinical trials on this disease. Many other molecules are in various stages of development and soon will have concrete results. In this review, we examined the mechanism of action and most relevant clinical data for these molecules., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)