Search

Summary Background Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis triaL (ORAL) Strategy aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib plus methotrexate, and adalimumab plus methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with a previous inadequate response to methotrexate. Methods ORAL Strategy was a 1 year, double-blind, phase 3b/4, head-to-head, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18 years or older with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) monotherapy, oral tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) plus methotrexate, or subcutaneous adalimumab (40 mg every other week) plus methotrexate at 194 centres in 25 countries. Eligible patients received live zoster vaccine at investigators' discretion. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who attained an American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% (ACR50) at month 6 in the full analysis set (patients who were randomly assigned to a group and received at least one dose of the study treatment). Non-inferiority between groups was shown if the lower bound of the 98·34% CI of the difference between comparators was larger than −13·0%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02187055. Findings 1146 patients received treatment (384 had tofacitinib monotherapy; 376 had tofacitinib and methotrexate; and 386 had adalimumab and methotrexate). At 6 months, ACR50 response was attained in 147 (38%) of 384 patients with tofacitinib monotherapy, 173 (46%) of 376 patients with tofacitinib and methotrexate, and 169 (44%) of 386 patients with adalimumab and methotrexate. Non-inferiority was declared for tofacitinib and methotrexate versus adalimumab and methotrexate (difference 2% [98·34% CI −6 to 11]) but not for tofacitinib monotherapy versus either adalimumab and methotrexate (−6 [−14 to 3]) or tofacitinib and methotrexate (−8 [−16 to 1]). In total, 23 (6%) of 384 patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy, 26 (7%) of 376 patients receiving tofacitinib plus methotrexate, and 36 (9%) of 386 patients receiving adalimumab plus methotrexate discontinued due to adverse events. Two (1%) of the 384 patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy died. No new or unexpected safety issues were reported for either treatment in this study for up to 1 year. Interpretation Tofacitinib and methotrexate combination therapy was non-inferior to adalimumab and methotrexate combination therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate in this trial. Tofacitinib monotherapy was not shown to be non-inferior to either combination. Funding Pfizer Inc.

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem granulomatous disease of unknown etiology. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha is an important player in granuloma formation, and recent clinical trials have investigated the efficacy of TNF-alpha inhibitors in sarcoidosis. Paradoxically, there are several case reports in the medical literature describing the development of sarcoidosis in patients treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors. We describe 3 cases of TNF-alpha antagonist-induced sarcoidosis: 1 case of pulmonary, ocular and cutaneous sarcoidosis developing in a patient receiving infliximab for erosive rheumatoid arthritis, 1 case of etanercept-induced sarcoidosis in a patient with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, and 1 case of sarcoidosis developing in a patient receiving etanercept for erosive rheumatoid arthritis. We also provide a brief discussion on the role of TNF alpha in granuloma formation and implications in the use of TNF-alpha antagonists in autoimmune disease.

Objective To develop and validate revised criteria for global functional status in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Revised criteria were formulated and tested for criterion and discriminant validity in 325 patients with RA. Results The revised criteria developed are as follows: class I = able to perform usual activities of daily living (self-care, vocational, and avocational); class II = able to perform usual self-care and vocational activities, but limited in avocational activities; class III = able to perform usual self-care activities but limited in vocational and avocational activities; class IV = limited in ability to perform usual self-care, vocational, and avocational activities. Usual self-care activities include dressing, feeding, bathing, grooming, and toileting; vocational and avocational activities are both patient-desired and age-, and sex-specific. The distribution properties of this classification schema were superior to those of the original Steinbrocker criteria. Mean Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were significantly (P less than 0.0001) different between, and increased across, the 4 classes. Conclusion Although there are limitations inherent in the use of global ordinal scales, the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria will be useful in describing the functional consequences of RA. A more detailed quantitative measure of physical disability should be used, however, for optimal monitoring of patients' clinical status in office practice and clinical research.

Despite a lack of governmental legislation, health care reform in the United States will continue secondary to market (insurer) forces. Various motives underlie the forces driving this reform, with patient care issues (sadly) being absent from the top of most lists. One can strengthen a rheumatology practice in concert with these reforms through various means. Continuous quality improvement, expanding your patient base, improving efficiency, decreasing overhead, increasing knowledge of your worth, and expanding your roles are key points discussed in this article. Rheumatologists have the tools needed to be successful and to make important contributions in the present health care era.Musculoskeletal diseases will continue to increase in prevalence, and the need for ongoing care, education, and research will expand. Rheumatologists can not only strengthen their practice but are also well positioned to be leaders in delivering costeffective, quality care to patients with musculoskeletal diseases in the United States and other countries.