Search

OBJECTIVES: To develop treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations in giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve data on treatment targets and outcomes in GCA/PMR as well as to identify the evidence for the effectiveness of a T2T-based management approach in these diseases. Based on evidence and expert opinion, the task force (29 participants from 10 countries consisting of physicians, a healthcare professional and a patient) developed recommendations, with consensus obtained through voting. The final level of agreement was provided anonymously. RESULTS: Five overarching principles and six-specific recommendations were formulated. Management of GCA and PMR should be based on shared decisions between patient and physician recognising the need for urgent treatment of GCA to avoid ischaemic complications, and it should aim at maximising health-related quality of life in both diseases. The treatment targets are achievement and maintenance of remission, as well as prevention of tissue ischaemia and vascular damage. Comorbidities need to be considered when assessing disease activity and selecting treatment. CONCLUSION: These are the first T2T recommendations for GCA and PMR. Treatment targets, as well as strategies to assess, achieve and maintain these targets have been defined. The research agenda highlights the gaps in evidence and the need for future research.

ObjectiveTo develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).MethodsThis international initiative had four phases. 1) Evaluation of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion through systematic review and meta-regression of the literature and criteria generation through an international Delphi exercise, an early patient cohort, and a patient survey. 2) Criteria reduction by Delphi and nominal group technique exercises. 3) Criteria definition and weighting based on criterion performance and on results of a multi-criteria decision analysis. 4) Refinement of weights and threshold scores in a new derivation cohort of 1,001 subjects and validation compared with previous criteria in a new validation cohort of 1,270 subjects.ResultsThe 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE include positive ANA at least once as obligatory entry criterion; followed by additive weighted criteria grouped in 7 clinical (constitutional, hematologic, neuropsychiatric, mucocutaneous, serosal, musculoskeletal, renal) and 3 immunologic (antiphospholipid antibodies, complement proteins, SLE-specific antibodies) domains, and weighted from 2 to 10. Patients accumulating ≥10 points are classified. In the validation cohort, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 93.4%, compared with 82.8% sensitivity and 93.4% specificity of the ACR 1997 and 96.7% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 criteria.ConclusionThese new classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary and international input, and have excellent sensitivity and specificity. Use of ANA entry criterion, hierarchically clustered, and weighted criteria reflects current thinking about SLE and provides an improved foundation for SLE research.

European League Against Rheumatism and are jointly supporting multiphase development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria based on weighted criteria and a continuous probability scale. Prior steps included item generation, item reduction and hierarchical organisation of candidate criteria using an evidence-based approach. Our objectives were to determine relative weights using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to set a provisional threshold score for SLE classification. An SLE Expert Panel (8 European, 9 North American) submitted 164 real, unique cases with a wide range of SLE probability in a standardised format. Using the candidate criteria, experts scored and rank-ordered 20 representative cases. At an in-person meeting, experts reviewed inter-rater reliability of scoring, further refined criteria definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise. Based on expert consensus decisions on pairwise comparisons of criteria, 1000minds software calculated criteria weights and rank-ordered the remaining 144 cases based on their additive scores. The score of the lowest-ranked case for which complete expert consensus was achieved defined the provisional threshold classification score. Inter-rater reliability of scoring cases with the candidate criteria was good. MCDA involved 74 pairwise decisions and was repeated for the arthritis and mucocutaneous domains when the initial ranking of some cases did not match expert opinion. After criteria weights and additive scores were recalculated once, experts reached consensus for SLE classification for all cases scoring>83. Using an iterative process, the candidate criteria definitions were refined, preliminary weights were calculated and a provisional threshold score for SLE classification was determined.

Objectives To assess the impact of baseline RF level on drug concentrations and efficacy of certolizumab pegol [CZP; TNF inhibitor (TNFi) without a crystallizable fragment (Fc)] and adalimumab (ADA; Fc-containing TNFi) in patients with RA. Methods The phase 4 EXXELERATE study (NCT01500278) was a 104-week, randomized, single-blind (double-blind until week 12; investigator-blind thereafter), head-to-head study of CZP vs ADA in patients with RA. In this post hoc analysis, we report drug concentration and efficacy outcomes stratified by baseline RF quartile (≤Q3 or >Q3). Results Baseline data by RF quartiles were available for 453 CZP-randomized and 454 ADA-randomized patients (≤Q3: ≤204 IU/ml; >Q3: >204 IU/ml). From week 12, the area under the curve (AUC) of ADA concentration was lower in patients with RF >204 IU/ml vs patients with RF ≤204 IU/ml; the AUC of CZP concentration was similar in patients with RF ≤204 IU/ml and >204 IU/ml. For patients with RF ≤204 IU/ml, disease activity score (DAS28)-CRP was similar between CZP- and ADA-treated patients through week 104. For patients with RF >204 IU/ml, mean DAS28-CRP was lower in CZP- vs ADA-treated patients at week 104. The proportion of patients with RF >204 IU/ml achieving DAS28-CRP low disease activity at week 104 was greater in CZP- vs ADA-treated patients. Conclusion CZP was associated with maintained drug concentration and efficacy in patients with RA and high RF and may therefore be a more suitable therapeutic option than TNFis with an Fc fragment in these patients. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01500278 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Baricitinib is an oral, reversible and selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 that is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have responded inadequately to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Evidence supporting the approved monotherapy indication is growing in real-world settings that reflect routine clinical practice. Methods: Results of separate analyses of real-world data from the observational prospective RA-BE-REAL, Erlangen Baricitinib cohort, the BSRBR-RA, and Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases (SCQM) registries, and the retrospective ORBIT-RA and SUSTAIN long-term chart reviews were reported, documenting baseline data and outcomes for a total of 932 patients with active RA receiving baricitinib as monotherapy. Findings were contrasted with those from a total of 850 patients receiving the drug as combination therapy. All analyses were descriptive and completed in September 2022. Results: Across the patient registries and observational studies, 39.4%–69.6% of patients received baricitinib monotherapy for the treatment of active RA. In these patients, after about 6–12 months of treatment, 40.7%–93.8% and 55.6%–88.0% achieved remission or low disease activity according to the composite measures of disease activity 28-joint count and Clinical Disease Activity Index, respectively. Treatment continuation/discontinuation rates differed across the studies. Conclusion: These findings suggest that baricitinib monotherapy can be a suitable treatment option in routine clinical practice for patients with RA, when used in accordance with current guidelines. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Baricitinib is an oral treatment for moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis. It is used, by itself as monotherapy or combined with another drug called methotrexate, to treat adults who have not responded well to first-line drugs. The use of baricitinib as monotherapy has not been well studied in clinical trials. However, an increasing amount of information supporting the approved monotherapy indication is available from patients treated in routine clinical practice since its first approval in 2017. This differs from information obtained from clinical trials in that it is from a more diverse group of people with rheumatoid arthritis and reflects the use of baricitinib in the real world. The current article looks at the outcomes of patients treated with baricitinib across many countries obtained from six different sources of information from patients in clinical practice. Across the different sources, 39.4%–69.6% of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were treated with baricitinib as monotherapy. In these patients, changes in combined measures that considered different aspects of rheumatoid arthritis supported the use of baricitinib. Assessments were made after 6–12 months of treatment. The proportions of patients stopping or continuing baricitinib can indicate how well baricitinib is working and how well it is tolerated. These proportions differed across the studies so we were unable to draw any conclusions for this measure. Overall, the information we provide suggests that baricitinib as monotherapy is a suitable treatment option in routine clinical practice for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis, when used according to current guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo define candidate criteria within multiphase development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism. Prior steps included item generation and reduction by Delphi exercise, further narrowed to 21 items in a nominal group technique exercise. Our objectives were to apply an evidence-based approach to the 21 candidate criteria, and to develop hierarchical organization of criteria within domains.MethodsA literature review identified the sensitivity and specificity of the 21 candidate criteria. Data on the performance of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion and operating characteristics of the candidate criteria in early SLE patients were evaluated. Candidate criteria were hierarchically organized into clinical and immunologic domains, and definitions were refined in an iterative process.ResultsBased on the data, consensus was reached to use a positive ANA of ≥1:80 titer (HEp-2 cells immunofluorescence) as an entry criterion and to have 7 clinical and 3 immunologic domains, with hierarchical organization of criteria within domains. Definitions of the candidate criteria were specified.ConclusionUsing a data-driven process, consensus was reached on new, refined criteria definitions and organization based on operating characteristics. This work will be followed by a multicriteria decision analysis exercise to weight criteria and to identify a threshold score for classification on a continuous probability scale.

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field.

Phase 3 trials are the mainstay of drug development across medicine but have often not met expectations set by preceding phase 2 studies. A systematic meta-analysis evaluated all randomized controlled, double-blind trials investigating targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis. Primary outcomes of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses were compared by mixed-model logistic regression, including exploration of potential determinants of efficacy overestimation. In rheumatoid arthritis, phase 2 trial outcomes systematically overestimated subsequent phase 3 results (odds ratio comparing ACR20 in phase 2 versus phase 3: 1.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.25-1.57, P < 0.001). Data for psoriatic arthritis trials were similar, but not statistically significant (odds ratio comparing ACR20 in phase 2 versus phase 3: 1.35, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.94, P = 0.09). Differences in inclusion criteria largely explained the observed differences in efficacy findings. Our findings have implications for all stakeholders in new therapeutic development and testing, as well as potential ethical implications. A meta-analysis comparing primary efficacy outcomes of phase 2 and phase 3 randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis shows that phase 2 studies consistently overestimate the effect sizes anticipated in subsequent phase 3 trials., Author(s): Andreas Kerschbaumer [sup.1] , Josef S. Smolen [sup.1] , Harald Herkner [sup.2] , Tijen Stefanova [sup.1] , Eva Chwala [sup.3] , Daniel Aletaha [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) Division of [...]

IntroductionAs patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive treatment with anti-tumour necrosis factors over several years, it is important to evaluate their long-term safety and efficacy. The objective of this study was to examine the safety and benefits of certolizumab pegol (CZP)+methotrexate (MTX) treatment for almost 5 years in patients with RA.MethodsPatients who completed the 24-week Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention of Structural Damage (RAPID) 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT00160602), or who were American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 non-responders at Week 16, entered the open-label extension (OLE; NCT00160641). After ≥6 months treatment with CZP 400 mg every two weeks (Q2W), dose was reduced to 200 mg Q2W, the approved maintenance dose. Safety data are presented from all patients who received ≥1 dose CZP (Safety population, n=612). Efficacy data are presented to Week 232 for the intent-to-treat (ITT, n=492) and Week 24 CZP RCT Completer (n=342) populations, and through 192 weeks of dose-reduction for the Dose-reduction population (patients whose CZP dose was reduced to 200 mg, n=369). Radiographic progression (modified total Sharp score change from RCT baseline >0.5) to Week 128 is reported for the Week 24 CZP Completers.ResultsIn the RCT, 619 patients were randomized to CZP+MTX (n=492) or placebo+MTX (n=127). Overall, 567 patients (91.6%) entered the OLE: 447 CZP and 120 placebo patients. Of all randomized patients, 358 (57.8%) were ongoing at Week 232. Annual drop-out rates during the first four years ranged from 8.4-15.0%. Event rates per 100 patient-years were 163.0 for adverse events (AEs) and 15.7 for serious AEs. Nineteen patients (3.1%) had fatal AEs (incidence rate=0.8). Clinical improvements in the RCT were maintained to Week 232 in the CZP Completers: mean Disease Activity Score 28 (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) change from baseline was -3.4 and ACR20/50/70 responses 68.4%/47.1%/25.1% (non-responder imputation). Similar improvements observed in the ITT were maintained following dose-reduction. 73.2% of CZP Completers had no radiographic progression at Week 128.ConclusionsIn patients with active RA despite MTX therapy, CZP was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified. CZP provided sustained improvements in clinical outcomes for almost 5 years.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00160602 and NCT00160641 . Registered 8 September 2005.