Search

Objective: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after initiation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment in European real-world patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Further, to investigate PRO remission rates across treatment courses, registries, disease duration, sex, and age at disease onset., Methods: Visual analog scale or numerical rating scale scores for pain, fatigue, patient global assessment (PtGA), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) from 12,262 patients with PsA initiating a TNFi in 13 registries were pooled. PRO remission rates (pain ≤ 1, fatigue ≤ 2, PtGA ≤ 2, and HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5) were calculated for patients still on the treatment., Results: For the first TNFi, median pain score was reduced by approximately 50%, from 6 to 3, 3, and 2; as were fatigue scores, from 6 to 4, 4, and 3; PtGA scores, from 6 to 3, 3, and 2; and HAQ-DI scores, from 0.9 to 0.5, 0.5, and 0.4 at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Six-month Lund Efficacy Index (LUNDEX)-adjusted remission rates for pain, fatigue, PtGA, and HAQ-DI scores were 24%, 31%, 36%, and 43% (first TNFi); 14%, 19%, 23%, and 29% (second TNFi); and 9%, 14%, 17%, and 20% (third TNFi), respectively. For biologic-naïve patients with disease duration < 5 years, 6-month LUNDEX-adjusted remission rates for pain, fatigue, PtGA, and HAQ-DI scores were 22%, 28%, 33%, and 42%, respectively. Corresponding rates for patients with disease duration > 10 years were 27%, 32%, 41%, and 43%, respectively. Remission rates were 33%, 40%, 45%, and 56% for men and 17%, 23%, 24%, and 32% for women, respectively. For patients aged < 45 years at diagnosis, 6-month LUNDEX-adjusted remission rate for pain was 29% vs 18% for patients ≥ 45 years., Conclusion: In 12,262 biologic-naïve patients with PsA, 6 months of treatment with a TNFi reduced pain by approximately 50%. Marked differences in PRO remission rates across treatment courses, registries, disease duration, sex, and age at onset of disease were observed, emphasizing the potential influence of factors other than disease activity on PROs., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Background: In a clinical trial setting, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) tofacitinib demonstrated higher adverse events rates compared with those taking the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) adalimumab or etanercept., Objective: Compare treatment discontinuations for adverse events (AEs) among second-line therapies in an international real-world RA population., Methods: Patients initiating JAKi, TNFi or a biological with another mode of action (OMA) from 17 registers participating in the 'JAK-pot' collaboration were included. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs. We used unadjusted and adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models to compare treatment discontinuations for AEs among treatment groups by class, but also evaluating separately the specific type of JAKi., Results: Of the 46 913 treatment courses included, 12 523 were JAKi (43% baricitinib, 40% tofacitinib, 15% upadacitinib, 2% filgotinib), 23 391 TNFi and 10 999 OMA. The adjusted cause-specific hazard rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs was similar for TNFi versus JAKi (1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10) and higher for OMA versus JAKi (1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23), lower with TNFi compared with tofacitinib (0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), but higher for TNFi versus baricitinib (1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30) and lower for TNFi versus JAKi in patients 65 or older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor (0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97)., Conclusion: While JAKi overall were not associated with more treatment discontinuations for AEs, subgroup analyses suggest varying patterns with specific JAKi, such as tofacitinib, compared with TNFi. However, these observations should be interpreted cautiously, given the observational study design., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RA has nothing to disclose. DM has nothing to disclose. SAB reports grants from Pfizer outside of this work and speaker fees from Benecke. DC has nothing to disclose. CC reports reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer outside the submitted work. DDC has nothing to disclose. LD reports contract with BMS outside the present work. OE reports consulting and speaker fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Jansen. DH has nothing to disclose. KLH reports grant support from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb and speaking fees from AbbVie. FI reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Galapagos and speaker fees from AbbVie, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and UCB. NI reports consulting and speaking fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Celltrion. LKF has nothing to disclose. SSK has nothing to disclose. TKK reports grants from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB Grünenthal, Sandoz and speaker fees from Grünenthal, Sandoz. BFL reports consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Pfizer and AbbVie, and speaking fees from Sandoz. GL has nothing to disclose. DN reports grants from MSD, consulting fees from BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and speaker fees from Pfizer and UCB. KP reports speaker fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Sobi, AbbVie, Pfizer and MSD. MPS has nothing to disclose. AR reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, speaker fees from Amgen, AbbVie and Novartis. ZR reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and speaker fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, SOBI, Lek (Sandoz). AS reports speaker fees from AbbVie, BMC, MSD, Pfizer and Roche. PV reports grants from Pfizer and Galapagos, consulting fees from Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Sidekick Health, speaking fees from Eli Lilly, Galapagos and Roularta. RW has nothing to disclose. JZ reports speaking fees from AbbVie, Sobi, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. DSC reports consulting fees from Medela AG. AF reports grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Galapagos and Eli Lilly, consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, speaker fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, MSD and BMS. KL has received consultancy and/or speaker fees from Pfizer, Viatris, Celltrion and Galapagos paid to her institution., (© 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.)

Objective: To evaluate and compare the use of oral glucocorticoids with three classes of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: We included patients from 13 observational registries treated with a TNF-inhibitor, abatacept or tocilizumab and with available information on the use of oral glucocorticoids. The main outcome was oral glucocorticoid withdrawal. A McNemar test was used to analyse the change in the use of glucocorticoids after 1 year. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regressions, adjusted for patient, treatment, and disease characteristics, were used to evaluate glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with glucocorticoids at baseline. Because of heterogeneity, analyses were done by registers and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis., Results: A total of 12,334 participants treated with TNF-inhibitors, 2100 with tocilizumab and 3229 with abatacept were included. At one-year, oral glucocorticoid use decreased in all treatment groups (odds ratio for stopping vs. starting of 2.19 [95% CI 1.58; 3.04] for TNF-inhibitors, 2.46 [1.39; 4.35] for tocilizumab; 1.73 [1.25; 2.21] for abatacept). Median time to glucocorticoid withdrawal was ≈2 years or more in most countries, with a gradual decrease over time. Compared to TNF-inhibitors, crude hazard ratios of glucocorticoid discontinuation were 0.65[0.48-0.87] for abatacept, and 1.04 [0.76-1.43] for tocilizumab, and adjusted hazard ratios were 1.1 [0.83-1.47] for abatacept, and 1.30 [0.96-1.78] for tocilizumab., Conclusion: After initiation of a bDMARD, glucocorticoid use decreased similarly in all treatment groups. However, glucocorticoid withdrawal was much slower than advocated by current international guidelines. More effort should be devoted to glucocorticoid tapering when low disease activity is achieved., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) have a higher prevalence of comorbidities compared to the general population. However, the implications of multimorbidity on therapeutic response and treatment retention remain unexplored., Objectives: (a) To evaluate the impact of multimorbidity on the effectiveness of the first targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (ts/bDMARD), in patients with RA after 2-year follow-up; (b) to investigate the influence of multimorbidity on treatment retention rate., Methods: Patients with RA from the BIOBADASER registry exposed to a first ts/bDMARDs were included. Patients were categorized based on multimorbidity status at baseline, defined as a Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) score ≥ 3. A linear regression model, adjusted for sex and age, was employed to compare the absolute DAS28 score over time after ts/bDMARD initiation between the two groups. The Log-Rank test and Kaplan-Meier curve were used to compare the retention rates of the first ts/bDMARD between the groups., Results: A total of 1128 patients initiating ts/bDMARD were included, with 107 (9.3%) exhibiting multimorbidity. The linear regression model showed significantly higher DAS28 (beta coefficient 0.33, 95%CI:0.07-0.58) over a two-year period in patients with multimorbidity, even after adjusting for age and sex. Finally, no differences in the ts/bDMARD retention rate were found between groups (median 6.94-6.96 years in CCI < 3 vs. 5.68-5.62 in CCI ≥ 3; p = 0.610)., Conclusions: Multimorbidity in patients with RA was associated with greater DAS28 scores within the first two years after ts/bDMARD initiation, in comparison with patients without multimorbidity. A slightly shorter retention rate was found in patients with multimorbidity, although the difference was non-significant., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To investigate the distribution of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) initiating a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), to assess the proportion reaching PRO "remission" across registries and treatment series, and to compare patients registered to fulfill the modified New York (mNY) criteria for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) vs patients with nonradiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA)., Methods: Fifteen European registries contributed PRO scores for pain, fatigue, patient global assessment (PtGA), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) from 19,498 patients with axSpA. Changes in PROs and PRO remission rates (definitions: ≤ 20 mm for pain, fatigue, PtGA, BASDAI, and BASFI; ≤ 0.5 for HAQ) were calculated at 6, 12, and 24 months of treatment., Results: Heterogeneity in baseline characteristics and outcomes between registries were observed. In pooled data, 6 months after the start of a first TNFi, pain score was reduced by approximately 60% (median at baseline/6/12/24 months: 65/25/20/20 mm) in patients on treatment. Similar patterns were observed for fatigue (68/32/30/25 mm), PtGA (66/29/21/20 mm), BASDAI (58/26/21/19 mm), BASFI (46/20/16/16 mm), and HAQ (0.8/0.4/0.2/0.2). Patients with AS (n = 3281) had a slightly better response than patients with nr-axSpA (n = 993). The Lund Efficacy Index (LUNDEX)-adjusted remission rates at 6 months for pain/fatigue/PtGA/BASDAI/BASFI/HAQ were 39%/30%/38%/34%/35%/48% for the AS cohort and 30%/21%/26%/24%/33%/47% for the nr-axSpA cohort. Better PRO responses were seen with a first TNFi compared to a second and third TNFi., Conclusion: Patients with axSpA starting a TNFi achieved high PRO remission rates, most pronounced in those fulfilling the mNY criteria and for the first TNFi., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: The expanded therapeutic arsenal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) raises new clinical questions. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cycling Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) with switching to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with RA after failure to the first JAKi., Methods: This is a nested cohort study within data pooled from an international collaboration of 17 national registries (JAK-pot collaboration). Data from patients with RA with JAKi treatment failure and who were subsequently treated with either a second JAKi or with a bDMARD were prospectively collected. Differences in drug retention rates after second treatment initiation were assessed by log-rank test and Cox regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders. Change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) over time was estimated using a linear regression model, adjusting for confounders., Results: 365 cycling and 1635 switching patients were studied. Cyclers were older and received a higher number of previous bDMARDs. Both strategies showed similar observed retention rates after 2 years of follow-up. However, adjusted analysis revealed that cycling was associated with higher retention (p=0.04). Among cyclers, when the first JAKi was discontinued due to an adverse event (AE), it was more likely that the second JAKi would also be stopped due to an AE. Improvement in CDAI over time was similar in both strategies., Conclusions: After failing the first JAKi, cycling JAKi and switching to a bDMARD appear to have similar effectiveness. Caution is advised if an AE was the reason to stop the first JAKi., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MP-S reports personal fees from Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Sanofi Genzyme, outside the submitted work. CS-P has nothing to disclose. JG-R has been a consultant on advisory boards of AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hospira, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme, and has received research grants from Pfizer and Roche. KL reports personal fees from Viatris, Pfizer, Celltrion and Gilead/Galapagos, outside the submitted work. DM has nothing to disclose. FI has received speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. KP has received fees for lectures and consultations from AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, UCB, Eli Lilly, SOBI, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Celltrion, Viatris and Novartis. DCN reports speaker and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. NI reports grants from Roche and Pfizer, and personal fees from AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme. CC has received clinical trial expenses from AbbVie, Ewopharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, and speaker and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB. KLH has received speaker fees from AbbVie and grants from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb and is also supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. DC has received consultant and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, Novartis, Sandoz and Tevapharm. AS has received speaker/honoraria from AbbVie, Celltrion, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. BFL has received clinical trial expenses from TRB and Roche, consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Celgene, Grünenthal, Kwizda, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Sandoz, and speaker fees from AbbVie, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Actiopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kwizda, Celgene, Sandoz, Grünenthal and Eli Lilly. ZR reports speaker and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Medis, Eli Lilly and Sandoz. AR reports personal fees from Amgen, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. EKK reports no competing interests. TKK has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Eva Pharma, Ewopharma, Gilead, Hikma, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Oktal, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB, and received research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. OE has received clinical trial expenses from AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Janssen, and speaker fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Novartis. GL has received consultant fees from AbbVie, BIOCAD, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and R-PHARM. SAB received an ASPIRE grant from Pfizer. AF has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB, and received research funding to Geneva University Hospital from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Galapagos. DSC has nothing to disclose. BIOBADASER has received funding from Fundacion Española de Reumatología, the Spanish Medicines and Health Products Agency (Agencia Española del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios) and equal grants from pharmaceutical companies (AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Samsung, Schering-Plough and UCB). The Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases (SCQM) database is sponsored by public and industrial support (http://scqm.ch/en/sponsoren/). Clinical work in Czech Republic was partially supported by the project from the Ministry of Health for conceptual development of research organization (MZ00023728023728) (Institute of Rheumatology). ROB-FIN is funded by AbbVie, Hospira, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. The Romanian Registry of Rheumatic Diseases (RRBR) uses unrestricted grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Ewopharma, Novartis, MSD, Roche, UCB and BMS. The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) is funded by a grant from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR). The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion HC, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi and Sandoz, and in the past Hospira, MSD, Roche, SOBI and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and The University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. The BSRBR-RA would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research through the Local Clinical Research Networks in England (and equivalent organisations in the devolved nations) at participating centres and the BSRBR-RA Control Centre Consortium. Rhumadata is supported by equal unrestricted grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, Novartis, Sandoz and Tevapharm. The RABBIT register is currently supported by an unconditional grant with equal parts from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Viatris, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. biorx.si has received equal grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Mylan, Sanofi Genzyme, Medis, Eli Lilly, Sandoz and Medis. Reuma.pt has received funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pfizer. NOR-DMARD has been supported with research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Many axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) patients receive a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in combination with a TNF inhibitor (TNFi). However, the value of this co-therapy remains unclear. The objectives were to describe the characteristics of axSpA patients initiating a first TNFi as monotherapy compared with co-therapy with csDMARD, to compare one-year TNFi retention and remission rates, and to explore the impact of peripheral arthritis., Methods: Data was collected from 13 European registries. One-year outcomes included TNFi retention and hazard ratios (HR) for discontinuation with 95% CIs. Logistic regression was performed with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of achieving remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)-CRP < 1.3 and/or BASDAI < 2) and stratified by treatment. Inter-registry heterogeneity was assessed using random-effect meta-analyses, combined results were presented when heterogeneity was not significant. Peripheral arthritis was defined as ≥1 swollen joint at baseline (=TNFi start)., Results: Amongst 24 171 axSpA patients, 32% received csDMARD co-therapy (range across countries: 13.5% to 71.2%). The co-therapy group had more baseline peripheral arthritis and higher CRP than the monotherapy group. One-year TNFi-retention rates (95% CI): 79% (78, 79%) for TNFi monotherapy vs 82% (81, 83%) with co-therapy (P < 0.001). Remission was obtained in 20% on monotherapy and 22% on co-therapy (P < 0.001); adjusted OR of 1.16 (1.07, 1.25). Remission rates at 12 months were similar in patients with/without peripheral arthritis., Conclusion: This large European study of axial SpA patients showed similar one-year treatment outcomes for TNFi monotherapy and csDMARD co-therapy, although considerable heterogeneity across countries limited the identification of certain subgroups (e.g. peripheral arthritis) that may benefit from co-therapy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: JAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line therapies of RA with different modes of action, since JAKi approval, in an international collaboration of 19 registers., Methods: In this observational cohort study, patients initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), abatacept (ABA) or JAKi were included. We compared the effectiveness of these treatments in terms of drug discontinuation and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response rates at 1 year. Analyses were adjusted for patient, disease and treatment characteristics, including lines of therapy and accounted for competing risk., Results: We included 31 846 treatment courses: 17 522 TNFi, 2775 ABA, 3863 IL-6i and 7686 JAKi. Adjusted analyses of overall discontinuation were similar across all treatments. The main single reason of stopping treatment was ineffectiveness. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were less often discontinued for ineffectiveness (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83), as was IL-6i (aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and more often for adverse events (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33). Adjusted CDAI response rates at 1 year were similar between TNFi, JAKi and IL-6i and slightly lower for ABA., Conclusion: The adjusted overall drug discontinuation and 1 year response rates of JAKi and IL-6i were similar to those observed with TNFi. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness, as were IL-6i., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KL reports personal fees from Gilead-Galapagos, Pfizer, Viatris, Celltrion, outside the submitted work. ML reports speaking fee from Boehringer Inghelheim, outside the submitted work. DM has nothing to disclose. SAB report grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. DC report grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Eli Lilly, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi-Genzyme, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from UCB, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sandoz, outside the submitted work. CC reports personal fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer outside the submitted work. RC has nothing to disclose. DDC has nothing to disclose. LD reports institutional grant from BMS outside the present work and speakers bureau from Eli Lilly and Galderma. OE has nothing to disclose. E-MH reports personal fees from AbbVie, Sanofi, Sobi ; institutional grants from Novo Nordic Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Danish Regions Medicine Grants, Roche, Novartis, AbbVie outside the submitted work. DH has nothing to discloseKLH reports honoraria from Abbvie and grants from Pfizer and BMS outside the submitted work, and is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. FI reports speaking fees from Abbvie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Roche, MSD, Galapagos, Pfizer, Celltrion, Janssen outside the submitted work. NI reports grants from Roche, Pfizer, personal fees from AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis,Amgen, Lilly, MSD. LK-F has nothing to disclose. EKK has nothing to disclose. TKK reports fees for speaking and/or consulting last 2 years from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Gilead, Hikma, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Oktal, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB. BFL reports personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, and personal fees from Novartis and Sandoz. GL reports personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from BMS, outside the submitted work. DCN reports grants from Roche, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from BMS, grants from Celgene, personal fees from Lilly, grant from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from UCB, outside the submitted work. KP has received honoraria for lectures and consultations from: AbbVie, BMS, Egis, Roche, Amgen, MSD, Medac, Eli Lilly, Pfizer. MPS reports personal fees from Janssen, MSD, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. ZR honoraria for lectures and consultations from: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Medis, Roche, outside the submitted work. MJS reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. AS reports speaker honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. PV reports speakers bureau for Eli Lilly, MSD, Galapagos, Roularta, consultancy fees from Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sidekick Health, Eli Lilly, Nordic Pharma, ABBVIE, Celltrion, BMS, UCB and is the grant holder from the Pfizer Chair Management of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis at KU Leuven. DSC has nothing to disclose. AF reports grants from AbbVie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos and Pfizer and speaker honoraria (educational events or symposia) from companies producing several of the targeted therapies that are included in this analysis (honoraria < 10’000 USD): AbbVie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Pfizer. Clinical work in Czech Republic was partially supported by the project from the Ministry of Health for conceptual development of research organisation MZ00023728023728 (Institute of Rheumatology). BIOBADASER has received funding from Fundacion Española de Reumatología, the Spanish Medicines and Health Products Agency (Agencia Española del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios) and equal grants from pharmaceutical companies (AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Samsung, Schering‐Plough and UCB). BioRx.si has received funding for clinical research paid to Društvo za razvoj revmatologije from AbbVie, Roche, Medis, MSD, Biogen, Amgen, Sanofi, Celgene and Pfizer. The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) is funded by a grant from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR). The BSR currently receives funding from Abbvie, Amgen, Celltrion HC, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Sandoz and in the past Hospira, MSD, Roche, SOBI and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and The University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. The BSRBR-RA would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research, through the Local Clinical Research Networks in England (and equivalent organisations in the devolved nations) at participating centres and the BSRBR-RA Control Centre Consortium. DANBIO was partially supported by public and private funding (AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB). NOR-DMARD was has been supported with research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. The RABBIT register is currently supported by an unconditional grant with equal parts from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Viatris, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. REUMA. PT is supported by unrestricted grants from Abbvie, Biogen, Celgene, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Pfizer. ROB-FIN is funded by AbbVie, Hospira, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. The Romanian Registry of Rheumatic Diseases (RRBR) uses unrestricted grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Ewopharma, Nopvartis MSD, Roche, UCB, and BMS. Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases (SCQM) database is sponsored by public and industrial support (http://scqm.ch/en/sponsoren/)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate time trends in baseline characteristics and retention, remission and response rates in bio-naïve axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients initiating TNF inhibitor (TNFi) treatment., Methods: Prospectively collected data on bio-naïve axSpA and PsA patients from routine care in 15 European countries were pooled. Three cohorts were defined according to year of TNFi initiation: A (1999-2008), B (2009-2014) and C (2015-2018). Retention, remission and response rates were assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months., Results: In total, 27 149 axSpA and 17 446 PsA patients were included. Cohort A patients had longer disease duration compared with B and C. In axSpA, cohort A had the largest proportion of male and HLA-B27 positive patients. In PsA, baseline disease activity was highest in cohort A. Retention rates in axSpA/PsA were highest in cohort A and differed only slightly between B and C. For all cohorts, disease activity decreased markedly from 0 to 6 months. In axSpA, disease activity at 24 months was highest in cohort A, where also remission and response rates were lowest. In PsA, remission rates at 6 and 12 months tended to be lowest in cohort A. Response rates were at all time points comparable across cohorts, and less between-cohort disease activity differences were seen at 24 months., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that over the past decades, clinicians have implemented more aggressive treatment strategies in spondyloarthritis. This was illustrated by shorter disease duration at treatment initiation, decreased retention rates and higher remission rates during recent years., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: There is a lack of real-life studies on interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibition in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We assessed real-life 6- and 12-month effectiveness (i.e., retention, remission, low disease activity [LDA], and response rates) of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab in PsA patients overall and across 1) number of prior biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), 2) years since diagnosis, and 3) European registries., Methods: Thirteen quality registries in rheumatology participating in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network provided longitudinal, observational data collected as part of routine care for secondary use. Data were pooled and analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots, log rank tests, Cox regression, and multiple linear and logistic regression analyses., Results: A total of 2,017 PsA patients started treatment with secukinumab between 2015 and 2018. Overall secukinumab retention rates were 86% and 76% after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Crude (LUNDEX adjusted) 6-month remission/LDA (LDA including remission) rates for the 28-joint Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level, and the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) were 13%/46% (11%/39%), 36%/55% (30%/46%), and 13%/56% (11%/47%), and 12-month rates were 11%/46% (7%/31%), 39%/56% (26%/38%), and 16%/62% (10%/41%), respectively. Clinical Disease Activity Index remission/LDA rates were similar to the SDAI rates. Six-month American College of Rheumatology 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria responses were 34%/19%/11% (29%/16%/9%); 12-month rates were 37%/21%/11% (24%/14%/7%). Secukinumab effectiveness was significantly better for b/tsDMARD-naive patients, similar across time since diagnosis (<2/2-4/>4 years), and varied significantly across the European registries., Conclusion: In this large real-world study on secukinumab treatment in PsA, 6- and 12-month effectiveness was comparable to that in previous observational studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Retention, remission, LDA, and response rates were significantly better for b/tsDMARD-naive patients, were independent of time since diagnosis, and varied significantly across the European countries., (© 2021 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: Comedication with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) during treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) is extensively used in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), although the additive benefit remains unclear. We aimed to compare treatment outcomes in patients with PsA treated with TNFi and csDMARD comedication versus TNFi monotherapy., Methods: Patients with PsA from 13 European countries who initiated a first TNFi in 2006-2017 were included. Country-specific comparisons of 1 year TNFi retention were performed by csDMARD comedication status, together with HRs for TNFi discontinuation (comedication vs monotherapy), adjusted for age, sex, calendar year, disease duration and Disease Activity Score with 28 joints (DAS28). Adjusted ORs of clinical remission (based on DAS28) at 12 months were calculated. Between-country heterogeneity was assessed using random-effect meta-analyses, combined results were presented when heterogeneity was not significant. Secondary analyses stratified according to TNFi subtype (adalimumab/infliximab/etanercept) and restricted to methotrexate as comedication were performed., Results: In total, 15 332 patients were included (62% comedication, 38% monotherapy). TNFi retention varied across countries, with significant heterogeneity precluding a combined estimate. Comedication was associated with better remission rates, pooled OR 1.25 (1.12-1.41). Methotrexate comedication was associated with improved remission for adalimumab (OR 1.45 (1.23-1.72)) and infliximab (OR 1.55 (1.21-1.98)) and improved retention for infliximab. No effect of comedication was demonstrated for etanercept., Conclusion: This large observational study suggests that, as used in clinical practice, csDMARD and TNFi comedication are associated with improved remission rates, and specifically, comedication with methotrexate increases remission rates for both adalimumab and infliximab., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BeG reports grants from BMS, grants from Pfizer, grants from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. AC reports consultancy and speaker fees from Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pfizer. MP-S reports speaker and research fees from Gilead, Janssen, MSD and Sanofi. KE reports consulting fees from Lilly, Biogene, Sobi, Pfizer and Gilead. HR reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. BjG reports other from Novartis, other from Amgen, outside the submitted work. GTJ reports grants from AbbVie, grants from Pfizer, grants from UCB, grants from Celgene / Amgen, grants from GSK, outside the submitted work. CC reports speaker fees and grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. RI reports speaker fee from Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly and UCB. JZ reports speaker and consulting fees from Elli-Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis and UCB. SY reports speaker fees from Abbvie, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Sanofi and Pfizer. BM reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. ZR reports speaker fees, consultancy fees and support to biorx.si registry by, AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medias, Medis, MSD, Novartis, OPH Oktal Pharma, Sandoz and Pfizer. MTreports speaker fees, consultancy fees and support to biorx.si registry by, AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medias, Medis, MSD, Novartis, OPH Oktal Pharma, Sandoz and Pfizer. FI reports consultancy fees and/or speaker honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, MSD, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene and UCB, outside this work. MJS reports personal fees from Abbvie, Novartis and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. PA-R reports research grant (paid to academic research institute) from Novartis. LMØ reports grants from Novartis, during the conduct of the study. MØ reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from UCB, grants and personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Regeneron, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. LJ reports lecture and consulting fees from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Eli-Lily and Janssen. JA reports grants from Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and UCB, outside the submitted work. MN reports research and consulting fees from Abbvie, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Retention of biological treatment provides a marker of drug effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Retention of golimumab was high in clinical trial extensions and real-world studies up to 5 years in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases., Objective: To assess the probability of real-world long-term retention of treatment with golimumab up to 7 years after treatment initiation., Methods: This retrospective noninterventional study involved analysis of the Spanish biological drugs registry, BIOBADASER. Adults who had ever received golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and had initiated it > 6 months before the analysis date, were included., Results: Among 685 patients (28.5% RA, 42.9% SpA, 28.6% PsA), the overall probability of retention of golimumab treatment since initiation was 71.7% (95% confidence interval 68.1-74.9) at year 1, 60.5% (56.5-64.2%) at year 2, 55.6% (51.5-59.5%) at year 3, 50.6% (46.2-54.8%) at year 4, 45.1% (40.1-50.0%) at year 5, 44.2% (39.0-49.3) at year 6, and 39.5% (32.8-46.2) at year 7. Retention was greater in patients with axial SpA or PsA versus RA (p < 0.001) and when golimumab was used as first-line treatment versus third or later lines (p < 0.001). Factors associated with greater golimumab retention in Cox regression included use as first-line biological therapy, having axial SpA or PsA rather than RA, and concomitant methotrexate therapy. Steroids were associated with lower retention., Conclusion: In this real-world study of RA, axial SpA, and PsA patients, the retention rate of golimumab was 39.5% at year 7. Key Points • Retention of biological treatment provides a marker of drug effectiveness and patient satisfaction. • This real-world study of 685 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) showed that golimumab treatment had a retention rate up to 39.5% at year 7. • Greater golimumab retention was associated with use as first-line biological therapy, having axial SpA or PsA rather than RA, and concomitant methotrexate therapy., (© 2021. International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR).)

Objective: To evaluate adherence to treatment in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Spain and to identify potential predictors of adherence., Methods: An observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study in outpatient clinics of Rheumatology Departments from 41 centers was conducted. A validated Spanish version of the compliance questionnaire in Rheumatology was used to measure adherence in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, representative of the Spanish population. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to detect predictors of adherence., Results: A total of 859 patients were recruited. An adherence rate of 79% was established. No differences were detected in adherence in patients receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs compared to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in patients receiving intravenous therapies compared to other routes of administration and in patients treated in specific day hospitals compared to polyvalent day hospitals. The number of drugs and cohabitation were independent predictors of adherence., Conclusion: An inexpensive and useful method was used to measure adherence in Spanish population. The adherence rate in rheumatoid arthritis is still suboptimal. Simpler, more convenient dosing regimens may improve compliance. Increased knowledge of compliance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and the identification of possible predictors of adherence will allow to develop effective intervention strategies., Competing Interests: Dr Manuel Pombo-Suarez reports grants from Roche Farma S.A. Spain, during the conduct of the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Pombo-Suarez et al.)

Abstract: This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (56-week treatment; 24-week follow-up) assessed tanezumab in patients with chronic low back pain and history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics (NCT02528253). Patients received placebo, subcutaneous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg every 8 weeks), or oral tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day). Primary endpoint was change in low back pain intensity (LBPI) at week 16 for tanezumab vs placebo. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of patients with ≥50% decrease in LBPI at week 16, change in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 16, and change in LBPI at week 2 for tanezumab vs placebo. Adverse events and joint safety were assessed through weeks 56 and 80, respectively. Tanezumab 10 mg met the primary endpoint by significantly improving LBPI at week 16 vs placebo; least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) difference = -0.40 (-0.76 to -0.04; P = 0.0281). Tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved all key secondary endpoints. Tanezumab 5 mg did not meet the primary endpoint (LS mean [95% CI] treatment difference vs placebo = -0.30 [-0.66 to 0.07; P = 0.1117]), preventing formal testing of key secondary endpoints for this dose. The proportion of patients with ≥50% improvement in LBPI at week 16 was 37.4% in the placebo group, 43.3% in the tanezumab 5 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.28 [0.97 to 1.70; P = 0.0846]), and 46.3% in the tanezumab 10 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.45 [1.09 to 1.91; P = 0.0101]). Prespecified joint safety events were more frequent with tanezumab 10 mg (2.6%) than tanezumab 5 mg (1.0%), tramadol (0.2%), or placebo (0%). Seven patients, all in the tanezumab 10 mg group (1.4%), underwent total joint replacement. In conclusion, tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved pain and function vs placebo in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic low back pain. Tanezumab was associated with a low rate of joint safety events, some requiring joint replacement., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Objectives: To explore 6-month and 12-month secukinumab effectiveness in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) overall, as well as across (1) number of previous biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), (2) time since diagnosis and (3) different European registries., Methods: Real-life data from 13 European registries participating in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network were pooled. Kaplan-Meier with log-rank test, Cox regression, χ² and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess 6-month and 12-month secukinumab retention, inactive disease/low-disease-activity states (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) <2/<4, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3/<2.1) and response rates (BASDAI50, Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) 20/40, ASDAS clinically important improvement (ASDAS-CII) and ASDAS major improvement (ASDAS-MI))., Results: We included 1860 patients initiating secukinumab as part of routine care. Overall 6-month/12-month secukinumab retention rates were 82%/72%, with significant (p<0.001) differences between the registries (6-month: 70-93%, 12-month: 53-86%) and across number of previous b/tsDMARDs (b/tsDMARD-naïve: 90%/73%, 1 prior b/tsDMARD: 83%/73%, ≥2 prior b/tsDMARDs: 78%/66%). Overall 6-month/12-month BASDAI<4 were observed in 51%/51%, ASDAS<1.3 in 9%/11%, BASDAI50 in 53%/47%, ASAS40 in 28%/22%, ASDAS-CII in 49%/46% and ASDAS-MI in 25%/26% of the patients. All rates differed significantly across number of previous b/tsDMARDs, were numerically higher for b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and varied significantly across registries. Overall, time since diagnosis was not associated with secukinumab effectiveness., Conclusions: In this study of 1860 patients from 13 European countries, we present the first comprehensive real-life data on effectiveness of secukinumab in patients with axSpA. Overall, secukinumab retention rates after 6 and 12 months of treatment were high. Secukinumab effectiveness was consistently better for bionaïve patients, independent of time since diagnosis and differed across the European countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BM: consultancy fees and research grant from Novartis. UL: None. CC: None. AC: fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. JZ: none. AGL: research grant from Novartis, consultant for/served on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. MP-S: speaker and consultancy fees from Abbvie, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, MSD and Sanofi. FO: speaker and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Abdi Ibrahim, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB and research grant from Pfizer. TKK: fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Egis, Eli Lilly, Hikma, MSD, Mylan, Novartis/Sandoz, Oktal, Orion Pharma, Hospira/Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB and received research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. ZR: speaker and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. MJS: speaker fees from Novartis and Pfizer. FI: speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD. AMH: research grant from MSD. BG: Speaker fee from Novartis. JA: none. RI: consulting fees from Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Ewopharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz. MJN: fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer. KP: honoraria for lectures from MSD, BMS, AbbVie, UCB, Roche, Biogen, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Medac, Egis. CS-P: none. SA: has received grant/research support from, been a consultant for, and served on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. JS: none. MT: none. HS: speaker fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Abbvie. MS: none. JÖ: none. AjG: None. GM: none. IvdH-B: Fees for speaking and/or consulting from Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, MSD, UCB and Pfizer. SG: none. CHB: research grant from Novartis. LØ: research grant from Novartis. MH: grant from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Personal fee from CellTrion, MSD, Orion, Samsung. MO: consultancy fees and/or speaker fees form Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB; and research support from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the impact of 'patient's minus evaluator's global assessment of disease activity' (ΔPEG) at treatment initiation on retention and remission rates of TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients across Europe., Methods: Real-life data from PsA and axSpA patients starting their first TNFi from 11 countries in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network were pooled. Retention rates were compared by Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank test and by Cox regression, and remission rates by χ2 test and by logistic regression across quartiles of baseline ΔPEG, separately in female and male PsA and axSpA patients., Results: We included 14 868 spondyloarthritis (5855 PsA, 9013 axSpA) patients. Baseline ΔPEG was negatively associated with 6/12/24-months' TNFi retention rates in female and male PsA and axSpA patients (P <0.001), with 6/12/24-months' BASDAI < 2 (P ≤0.002) and ASDAS < 1.3 (P ≤0.005) in axSpA patients, and with DAS28CRP(4)<2.6 (P ≤0.04) and DAPSA28 ≤ 4 (P ≤0.01), but not DAS28CRP(3)<2.6 (P ≥0.13) in PsA patients, with few exceptions on remission rates. Retention and remission rates were overall lower in female than male patients., Conclusion: High baseline patient's compared with evaluator's global assessment was associated with lower 6/12/24-months' remission as well as retention rates of first TNFi in both PsA and axSpA patients. These results highlight the importance of discordance between patient's and evaluator's perspective on disease outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To compare treatment effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients naïve to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) treated with tocilizumab (TCZ) or TNF-inhibitor (TNFi) with (-combo) or without (-mono) conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs)., Methods: Patients with RA across 7 European registries, naïve to bDMARDs who initiated treatment with TCZ or TNFi from 2009 to 2016 were included. Drug retention rate was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models, and CDAI over time by mixed models. The proportions of patients reaching CDAI low disease activity (LDA) and remission after one year were corrected for attrition., Results: 6713 TNFi-combo, 3762 TNFi-mono, 646 TCZ-combo and 384 TCZ-mono were eligible. Crude median retention was 3.67 years (95%CI 3.41-3.83) for TNFi-combo, 4.14 (3.77-4.62) for TNFi-mono, 2.98 (2.76-3.34) for TCZ-combo and 3.63 years (3.34-5.03) for TCZ-mono. After adjustment for covariates, country and year of treatment initiation stratification, hazards of discontinuation were lower for TCZ-mono (0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.69) and TCZ-combo (0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81) compared to TNFi-combo. Adjusted CDAI evolution was not significantly different between groups. CDAI LDA and remission corrected for attrition were similar between TCZ with or without csDMARDs and TNFi-combo., Conclusion: In routine care across 7 European countries, the adjusted drug retention, adjusted CDAI over time and attrition-corrected response proportion for RA patients were similar for bio-naïve patients if treated with TNFi-combo, TCZ-combo or TCZ-mono., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the association of the evolution in physician-reported and patient-reported outcomes with decision to stop biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in RA. The contribution of baseline characteristics is well established, but little is known about how the disease evolution influences the decision to discontinue therapy., Methods: RA patients who initiated a bDMARD treatment from 2009 and with information on date of visit were pooled from seven European RA registers. Each outcome was divided into baseline assessments (capturing the inter-individual differences at drug initiation) and changes from baseline at subsequent visits (capturing the individual evolution). Cox regression models were used to examine their association with drug discontinuation, adjusting for baseline patient and co-therapy characteristics and stratifying by register and calendar year of drug initiation., Results: A total of 25 077 patients initiated a bDMARDs (18 507 a TNF-inhibitor, 3863 tocilizumab and 2707 abatacept) contributing an amount of 46 456.8 patient-years. Overall, drug discontinuation was most strongly associated with a poor evolution of the DAS28, with a hazard ratio of 1.34 (95% CI 1.29, 1.40), followed by its baseline value. A change of Physician Global Assessment was the next strongest predictor of discontinuation, then the Patient Global Assessment., Conclusions: The decision to discontinue treatments appears to be mostly influenced by DAS28 and particularly its evolution over time, followed by Physician Global Assessment evolution, suggesting that the decision to stop bDMARDs relies more on the physician's than on the patient's global assessment., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a complex disease in which different mechanisms are involved. Studies suggest a key role for aberrant pathways of T-cell activation in the initiation and perpetuation of disease. Abatacept is a fusion protein composed of the Fc region of the immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) fused to the extracellular domain of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA4). It has the ability to modulate T-cell activation by interfering with co-stimulation of these cells, a necessary step to become activated. This suggests that abatacept may play a role in the progression and/or even the initiation of RA. Areas covered: a review of the different studies carried out during clinical development of abatacept was performed. Both formulations, intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC), showed a similar and consistent efficacy and safety profile. Abatacept was effective both in RA patients not responding to methotrexate (MTX) and to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Expert commentary: abatacept, with its unique mechanism of action, proved to be a useful therapeutic alternative in RA, also having an acceptable safety profile. Evidence points out that abatacept may be able to alter the RA disease course. Ongoing studies will clarify this issue.

Objective: To compare the real-word effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC) and intravenous tocilizumab (TCZ-IV) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Patients with RA with TCZ from eight European registries were included. Drug retention was compared using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for baseline patient, disease and treatment characteristics, using a strata term for year of treatment initiation and country of registry. The proportions of patients achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission and low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year were compared using samples matched on the same covariates and corrected for attrition using LUNDEX., Results: 3448 patients were retrieved, 2414 with TCZ-IV and 1034 with TCZ-SC. Crude median retention was 3.52 years (95% CI 3.22 to 3.85) for TCZ-IV and 2.12 years for TCZ-SC (95% CI 1.88 to 2.38). In a country-stratified and year of treatment initiation-stratified, covariate-adjusted analysis, hazards of discontinuation were similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treated patients (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09). The average adjusted CDAI change at 1 year was similar in both groups (-6.08). After matching, with 560 patients in each group, CDAI remission corrected for attrition at 1 year was also similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (10.4% in TCZ-IV vs 12.8% in TCZ-SC (difference: 2.4%, bootstrap 95% CI -2.1% to 7.6%)), but CDAI LDA was lower in TCZ-IV patients: 41.0% in TCZ-IV versus 49.1% in TCZ-SC (difference: 8.0 %; bootstrap 95% CI 2.4% to 12.4%)., Conclusion: With similar retention and effectiveness, TCZ-SC is an adequate alternative to TCZ-IV for RA. When possible, considering the costs of the TCZ-IV route, TCZ-SC should be the preferred mode of administration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KL: none declared. DM: none declared. FI: none declared. EKK: none declared. TKK has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Merck-Serono, MSD, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and UCB, and received research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. DN benefited from grant and research support from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, and has received fees for speaking and/or consulting for AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Roche, UCB and Pfizer. KP benefited from grant and research support from AbbVie, Roche, Medis, MSD and Pfizer, and has received fees for speaking and/or consulting for AbbVie, Roche, Amgen, MSD, BMS, UCB and Egis. MP-S: none declared. ZR: none declared. MJS: none declared. CC: has received speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Angellini, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Egis, MSD, Pfizer, Richter, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Teva, UCB and Zentiva. GL has received fees for consulting for BMS, Roche, MSD, AbbVie and Pfizer. DSC has received consulting fees from BMS, Pfizer and Janssen. CG has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, MSD, Janssen Cilag, Amgen and UCB, and received research funding from Roche, AbbVie, MSD and Pfizer.

Objective: To evaluate tolerability, safety, and quality-of-life outcomes in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component receiving tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR., Methods: Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale] ≥ 6; painDETECT positive/unclear ratings) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. Change in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) total score from baseline to final evaluation was a primary endpoint., Results: For the primary tolerability-related endpoint, the 97.5% exact repeated confidence interval for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR for the PAC-SYM total score was [-0.259, 0.121], showing noninferiority (upper limit < 0.7). Incidences of constipation and vomiting were significantly lower with tapentadol PR than oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.045). Confirmatory superiority based on formal noninferiority was shown for the primary effectiveness endpoint (change from baseline to final evaluation in pain intensity) for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (presented separately). Improvements in the Short Form-12 physical component summary and EuroQol-5 Dimension health status index and health state assessment were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.024)., Conclusions: Tapentadol PR had a minimal impact on bowel function (noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR) and, along with superior effectiveness (presented separately), was associated with significantly lower incidences of constipation and vomiting and significant improvements in quality-of-life measures vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR., (© 2015 The authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

To test whether a higher genetic risk load for knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with an earlier age at symptom onset. Six polymorphisms in GDF5, PTGS2, 7q22 locus, DVWA, DIO3, and ASPN that have been associated with knee OA were analyzed in 255 patients that had undergone total knee replacement (TKR) because of primary OA and in 457 healthy controls. We looked for association between the number of risk alleles in each patient and his age at symptom onset with linear regression and t-tests between the upper and lower quartiles. There was not even a weak trend in the direction of a younger age at symptom onset in the patients carrying more risk alleles. Patients in the upper quartile of age at symptom onset (67.0 ± 2.8 years) carried the same number of OA risk alleles (5.4 ± 1.4 vs. 5.3 ± 1.0) than patients in the lower quartile (44.6 ± 5.5 years). We did not find any evidence in support of the hypothesis of an earlier knee OA symptom onset associated with higher genetic risk load as determined by the six loci. This result suggests that old age and genetic risk act as independent factors in the pathogenesis of OA. It also indicates that designing OA genetic studies with patients selected for early symptom onset will not provide any substantial power gain., (Copyright © 2011 Orthopaedic Research Society.)

Objective: Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs143383 (T to C) in the 5'-untranslated region (5'-UTR) of GDF5 has recently been reported to be associated with osteoarthritis (OA) susceptibility, with lower expression of the risk-associated T allele observed in vitro and in vivo. The in vivo studies were performed on cartilage tissue from OA patients. The present study was undertaken to expand the analysis of the effect of this SNP on GDF5 allelic expression to more joint tissue types, to investigate for cis and trans factors that interact with the SNP, and to examine novel cis-acting GDF5 regulatory polymorphisms., Methods: Tissue samples were collected from OA patients undergoing joint replacement of the hip or knee. Nucleic acid was extracted, and, using rs143383 and an assay that discriminates and quantifies allelic expression, the relative amount of GDF5 expression from the T and C alleles was measured. Additional common variants in the GDF5 transcript sequence were interrogated as potential regulatory elements using allelic expression and luciferase reporter assays, and electrophoretic mobility shift assays were used to search for trans factors binding to rs143383., Results: We observed a consistent allelic expression imbalance of GDF5 in all tissues tested, implying that the functional effect mediated by rs143383 on GDF5 expression is joint-wide. We identified a second polymorphism, located in the 3'-UTR of GDF5, that influenced allelic expression of the gene independent of rs143383. Finally, we observed differential binding of deformed epidermal autoregulatory factor 1 (DEAF-1) to the 2 alleles of rs143383., Conclusion: These findings show that the OA susceptibility mediated by polymorphism in GDF5 is not restricted to cartilage, emphasizing the need to consider the disease as involving the whole joint. The existence of an additional cis-acting regulatory polymorphism highlights the complexity of the regulation of expression of this important OA susceptibility locus. DEAF-1 is a trans-acting factor that merits further investigation as a potential tool for modulating GDF5 expression.

Objectives: Decreased levels of transforming growth factor beta (TGFbeta) have been related to the failure of cartilage repair in experimental models of osteoarthritis. This study aimed to examine this aspect of osteoarthritis in human cartilage., Methods: Cartilage samples were obtained from 11 patients with hip osteoarthritis and 11 patients with femoral neck fracture who were undergoing total hip replacement. Gene expression of the three TGFbeta isoforms, collagen type II (COL2A1) and aggrecan (AGC1) was analysed by reverse transcription quantitative PCR and immunohistochemistry., Results: Expression of the three TGFbeta isoforms was increased in osteoarthritis cartilage. The upregulation was more marked for the TGFbeta3 isoform (2.3-fold) than for TGFbeta1 (1.6-fold) or TGFbeta2 (1.7-fold). The messenger RNA levels of TGFbeta1 and TGFbeta2 were strongly correlated in osteoarthritis cartilage (r(s) = 0.83, p = 0.002), but levels of TGFbeta3 were uncorrelated with any of the two other TGFbeta isoforms. Immunohistochemistry showed an extension of immunoreactivity for the three TGFbeta isoforms to more chondrocytes and to deeper cartilage layers in the more severe osteoarthritis lesions. No correlation of TGFbeta isoforms with COL2A1 or AGC1 expression levels was found., Conclusions: The three isoforms of TGFbeta were differentially upregulated in late osteoarthritis in relation to an increased percentage of TGFbeta-positive chondrocytes. These results indicate that cartilage damage progresses in spite of the TGFbeta stimulus for cartilage anabolism and that other causes of the failure to cope with the increased cartilage catabolism of osteoarthritis should be investigated.

Objective: To investigate the effect in OA (Osteoarthritis) susceptibility of putative damaging changes in ADAM (A Disintegrin And Metalloprotease) and ADAMTS (ADAM with ThromboSpondin motif) proteases., Methods: Non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNP) in 18 ADAMTS and 31 ADAM genes were analyzed with two software applications for prediction of functional damage. Four putative damaging nsSNP were found in ADAMTS2, ADAMTS14, ADAMTS16 and ADAM12, respectively. These nsSNPs were analyzed in case-control sample collections with a variety of phenotypes totalling 3217 OA patients and 2214 healthy controls, all of them Caucasians., Results: No statistically significant differences were found in ADAMTS2, ADAMTS16 and ADAM12 nsSNPs. Conversely, the rare allele of the rs4747096 nsSNP in ADAMTS14 was overrepresented in women requiring joint replacement because of knee OA (O.R.(M-H) (odds ratio. Mantel-Haenszel)=1.41, 95% C.I.=1.1-1.8; P=0.002) and in patients with symptomatic hand OA (O.R.=1.37, 95% C.I.=1.0-1.9; P=0.047). A non significant increase in the frequency of the same allele was also found in patients with hip OA requiring prosthesis (O.R.(M-H)=1.14, 95% C.I.=1.0-1.3; P=0.08). No association was found with other OA phenotypes., Conclusion: Our findings implicate ADAMTS14 in OA, specifically in knee OA requiring joint replacement in women and, possibly, in hand OA. Independent association of ADAMTS14 genetic variation to knee OA in women has been communicated. ADAMTS14 involvement, if confirmed, will open a new area of interest in OA pathogenesis because of its role in the maturation of collagen fibers.

Objective: Given the recent characterization of ADAMTS-5 as the main aggrecanase of cartilage destruction in mouse models, we explored whether genetic variation and, in particular, putative damaging polymorphisms in the ADAMTS-5 gene modify susceptibility to osteoarthritis (OA)., Methods: Two likely deleterious nonsynonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were identified in ADAMTS-5 by bioinformatics analysis, rs2830585 in exon 5 affecting a thrombospondin 1 motif, and rs226794 in exon 7. Exploration of their role was carried out in 3 steps, discovery, extension, and replication, on samples obtained from 4 European Caucasian collections, comprising a total of 2,715 patients with knee, hip, or hand OA and 1,185 OA-free controls. In addition, 6 tagSNPs were studied to fully evaluate genetic variation in the ADAMTS-5 locus., Results: Initial analyses of 2 sample collections (n = 277 and n = 159) showed a trend toward decreased frequency of the putative deleterious allele of rs226794 among patients with severe knee OA (P = 0.047 versus controls). However, results in patients with knee OA from 2 additional sample collections (n = 360 and n = 265) did not confirm this trend. No association was found with hip OA or hand OA. None of the other SNPs or haplotypes constructed with these SNPs showed a significant association with OA susceptibility., Conclusion: Use of several collections of OA samples allowed us to obtain sound evidence against the participation of genetic variation in ADAMTS-5 in OA susceptibility. These results indicate the need to further explore the function of this aggrecanase in human OA to determine whether it is as critical as has been observed in mouse models.

Background: Assessment of gene expression is an important component of osteoarthritis (OA) research, greatly improved by the development of quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). This technique requires normalization for precise results, yet no suitable reference genes have been identified in human articular cartilage. We have examined ten well-known reference genes to determine the most adequate for this application., Results: Analyses of expression stability in cartilage from 10 patients with hip OA, 8 patients with knee OA and 10 controls without OA were done with classical statistical tests and the software programs geNorm and NormFinder. Results from the three methods of analysis were broadly concordant. Some of the commonly used reference genes, GAPDH, ACTB and 18S RNA, performed poorly in our analysis. In contrast, the rarely used TBP, RPL13A and B2M genes were the best. It was necessary to use together several of these three genes to obtain the best results. The specific combination depended, to some extent, on the type of samples being compared., Conclusion: Our results provide a satisfactory set of previously unused reference genes for qPCR in hip and knee OA This confirms the need to evaluate the suitability of reference genes in every tissue and experimental situation before starting the quantitative assessment of gene expression by qPCR.

A compelling genetic association with osteoarthritis (OA) of a functional SNP (rs143383, T/C) in the 5'-UTR of the GDF5 gene was recently reported in case-control cohorts from Japan and China. GDF5 is a pro-chondrogenic growth factor. The T-allele frequency of the gene was elevated in cases, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.79, and in vitro functional studies demonstrated that this allele mediated a moderate but significant reduction in the activity of the GDF5 promoter in several cell lines. Our initial objective was to assess whether the SNP was also associated with OA in a broad European population by genotyping the SNP in 2487 cases and 2018 age-matched controls from the UK and Spain. The T-allele was associated with OA (P = 0.03, OR = 1.10) as was carrier status for this allele (P = 0.004, OR = 1.28), demonstrating that the SNP is associated with OA in two diverse ethnic groups, Asians and Europeans. We subsequently assessed the functional effect of the SNP on GDF5 allelic expression using RNA extracted from the cartilage of OA patients who had undergone joint-replacement surgery. The associated T-allele showed up to a 27% reduction in expression relative to the C-allele (P = 0.00007), revealing that the functional effect mediated by SNP rs143383 on GDF5 expression is active in patients who have severe disease up to the point at which they require surgery. A small but persistent imbalance of GDF5 expression throughout life therefore appears to render an individual more susceptible to OA.

Objective: To replicate the association of frizzled-related protein (FRZB) non-synonymous polymorphisms with osteoarthritis (OA) susceptibility., Methods: Three groups of Spanish patients with OA were included: with total joint replacement due to primary OA in the hip (n = 310), or the knee (n = 277), or with hand OA (n = 242). Controls were more than 55 years old and did not show OA (n = 294). SNPs rs288326 (R200W) and rs7775 (R324G) were genotyped., Results: There were no significant differences in allele frequencies between controls and each of the three groups of OA patients. However, allele G of the R324G SNP showed a trend to be more frequent in patients with a clinical OA syndrome at multiple joints (p = 0.07), specifically in women of the total hip replacement group (8.3% in patients without other affected joints, 13.1% with one, 15.9% with two and 24.1% with more than two additional joints, p for trend = 0.008)., Conclusions: No direct replication of previous OA association findings was obtained but the results suggest that the R324G SNP of the FRZB gene may have an effect in OA development in multiple joints, with a specific severe involvement of the hip in women. This phenotype could reconcile previous studies that showed association either with generalised OA or with hip OA in women.

A recent genetic association study has identified a microsatellite in the coding sequence of the asporin gene as a susceptibility factor for osteoarthritis (OA). Alleles of this microsatellite determine the variable number of aspartic acid residues in the amino-terminal end of the asporin protein. Asporin binds directly to the growth factor transforming growth factor beta and inhibits its anabolic effects in cartilage, which include stimulation of collagen and aggrecan synthesis. The OA-associated allele, with 14 aspartic acid residues, inhibits the anabolic effects of transforming growth factor beta more strongly than other asporin alleles, leading to increased OA liability. We have explored whether the association found in several cohorts of Japanese hip OA and knee OA patients was also present in Spanish Caucasians. We studied patients that had undergone total joint replacement for primary OA in the hip (n = 303) or the knee (n = 188) and patients with hand OA (n = 233), and we compared their results with controls (n = 294) lacking overt OA clinical symptoms. No significant differences were observed in any of the multiple comparisons performed, which included global tests of allele frequency distributions and specific comparisons as well as stratification by affected joint and by sex. Our results, together with reports from the United Kingdom and Greece, indicate that the stretch of aspartic acid residues in asporin is not an important factor in OA susceptibility among European Caucasians. It remains possible that lifestyle, environmental or genetic differences allow for an important effect of asporin variants in other ethnic groups as has been reported in the Japanese, but this should be supported by additional studies.