Search

OBJECTIVES:To investigate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab for up to 52 weeks in two phase 3 studies of patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) who were biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naive (COAST-V) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced (COAST-W). METHODS:Adults with active r-axSpA were randomised 1:1:1:1 (n=341) to 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 (IXE Q2W) or 4 weeks (IXE Q4W), placebo (PBO) or 40 mg adalimumab Q2W (ADA) in COAST-V and 1:1:1 (n=316) to IXE Q2W, IXE Q4W or PBO in COAST-W. At week 16, patients receiving ixekizumab continued their assigned treatment; patients receiving PBO or ADA were rerandomised 1:1 to IXE Q2W or IXE Q4W (PBO/IXE, ADA/IXE) through week 52. RESULTS:In COAST-V, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) responses rates (intent-to-treat population, non-responder imputation) at weeks 16 and 52 were 48% and 53% (IXE Q4W); 52% and 51% (IXE Q2W); 36% and 51% (ADA/IXE); 19% and 47% (PBO/IXE). Corresponding ASAS40 response rates in COAST-W were 25% and 34% (IXE Q4W); 31% and 31% (IXE Q2W); 14% and 39% (PBO/IXE). Both ixekizumab regimens sustained improvements in disease activity, physical function, objective markers of inflammation, QoL, health status and overall function up to 52 weeks. Safety through 52 weeks of ixekizumab was consistent with safety through 16 weeks. CONCLUSION:The significant efficacy demonstrated with ixekizumab at week 16 was sustained for up to 52 weeks in bDMARD-naive and TNFi-experienced patients. bDMARD-naive patients initially treated with ADA demonstrated further numerical improvements after switching to ixekizumab. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ixekizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02696785/NCT02696798.

BackgroundPatients with spondyloarthritis with radiographic sacroiliitis are traditionally classified according to the modified New York (mNY) criteria as ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and more recently according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA).ObjectiveTo investigate the agreement between the mNY criteria for AS and the ASAS criteria for r-axSpA and reasons for disagreement.MethodsPatients with back pain ≥3 months diagnosed as axSpA with radiographic sacroiliitis (mNY radiographic criterion) were selected from eight cohorts (ASAS, Esperanza, GESPIC, OASIS, Reuma.pt, SCQM, SPACE, UCSF). Subsequently, we calculated the percentage of patients who fulfilled the ASAS r-axSpA criteria within the group of patients who fulfilled the mNY criteria and vice versa in six cohorts with complete information.ResultsOf the 3882 patients fulfilling the mNY criteria, 93% also fulfilled the ASAS r-axSpA criteria. Inversely, of the 3434 patients fulfilling the ASAS r-axSpA criteria, 96% also fulfilled the mNY criteria. The main cause for discrepancy between the two criteria sets was the reported age at onset of back pain.ConclusionAlmost all patients with axSpA with radiographic sacroiliitis fulfil both ASAS and mNY criteria, which supports the interchangeable use of the terms AS and r-axSpA.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of denosumab in suppressing joint destruction when added to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsThis was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study in Japan. Patients with RA aged ≥20 years receiving csDMARDs were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to denosumab 60 mg every 3 months (Q3M), denosumab 60 mg every 6 months (Q6M) or placebo. The change in the modified total Sharp score (mTSS) and effect on bone mineral density (BMD) at 12 months was evaluated.ResultsIn total, 654 patients received the trial drugs. Denosumab groups showed significantly less progression of joint destruction. The mean changes in the mTSS at 12 months were 1.49 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.99) in the placebo group, 0.99 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.49) in the Q6M group (p=0.0235) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.03) in the Q3M group (p=0.0055). The mean changes in bone erosion score were 0.98 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.31) in the placebo group, 0.51 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.80) in the Q6M group (p=0.0104) and 0.22 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.34) in the Q3M group (p=0.0001). No significant between-group difference was observed in the joint space narrowing score. The per cent change in lumbar spine (L1-L4) BMD in the placebo, Q6M and Q3M groups were -1.03%, 3.99% (p

ObjectiveThe natural history of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is incompletely characterized, and there are concerns that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs provide inadequate disease control in patients with active disease. This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of certolizumab pegol (CZP), an anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment, in patients with nonradiographic axial SpA with objective signs of inflammation.MethodsIn this ongoing parallel-group double-blind study, adults with active disease were recruited from 80 centers in Australia, Europe, North America, and Taiwan, and were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or CZP (400 mg at weeks 0, 2, and 4, followed by 200 mg every 2 weeks) in addition to nonbiologic background medication (NBBM). Switching to open-label CZP (or other biologic) or making background medication changes was permitted at any point during the trial, although changes before week 12 were discouraged. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving major improvement (MI) (i.e., a ≥2.0-point decrease in the score from baseline or achievement of the lowest possible score [0.6]) in the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) at week 52.ResultsA total of 317 patients were randomized to receive placebo plus NBBM (n = 158) or CZP plus NBBM (n = 159). ASDAS-MI at week 52 was achieved in 47.2% (75 of 159) of CZP plus NBBM patients, which was significantly greater (P < 0.0001) than the 7.0% (11 of 158) of placebo plus NBBM patients in whom ASDAS-MI was achieved. Of the placebo plus NBBM patients, 60.8% (96 of 158) switched to open-label treatment before week 52 compared to 12.6% (20 of 159) of the CZP plus NBBM patients.ConclusionAdding CZP to background medication is superior to adding placebo in patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA. These results indicate that remission in nonradiographic axial SpA treated without biologics occurs infrequently, demonstrating the need for treatment beyond nonbiologic therapy.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of denosumab for progressive bone erosion in risk factor subgroups of Japanese RA patients.MethodsThis study included 340 RA patients on MTX from the dose-response study of Denosumab in patients with RheumatoId arthritis on methotrexate to Validate inhibitory effect on bone Erosion (DRIVE study-a 12-month, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study). The patients were randomized to receive placebo or denosumab 60 mg every 6 months, 3 months or 2 months. Subgroup analyses involved baseline RF, ACPA, swollen joint count, CRP level, RA duration, ESR and glucocorticoid use.ResultsPatients with risk factor positivity generally showed consistent results for the primary endpoint of the change in the modified Sharp erosion score at 12 months from baseline. In the placebo, every 6 months, every 3 months and every 2 months groups, the mean changes in the erosion score, according to the RF status (RF-positive vs -negative subgroups), were 1.18 vs 0.59, 0.25 (P = 0.0601 vs placebo) vs 0.31 (P = 0.0827), 0.21 (P = 0.0422) vs -0.02 (P = 0.0631) and 0.15 (P = 0.0010) vs -0.05 (P = 0.0332), respectively, while the mean changes in the erosion score, according to the ACPA status (ACPA-positive vs -negative subgroups), were 1.30 vs 0.07, 0.26 (P = 0.0142) vs 0.33 (P = 0.2748), 0.16 (P = 0.0058) vs 0.08 (P = 0.7166) and 0.09 (P < 0.0001) vs 0.08 (P = 0.8939), respectively.ConclusionDenosumab is a potentially useful treatment option for RA patients who are positive for RF, ACPA and other possible risk factors.Trial registrationJAPIC Clinical Trials Information, http://www.clinicaltrials.jp/user/cteSearch_e.jsp, JapicCTI-101263.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in 3 randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Studies 1 and 2 included patients with radiographic axial SpA (anti-tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF]-naive patients and patients with inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF, respectively); study 3 patients had nonradiographic axial SpA.MethodsIn all 3 studies, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg or placebo up to 24 weeks, after which placebo-treated patients were rerandomized to receive ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg. The primary end point in studies 1 and 2 was the proportion of patients who met the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for 40% improvement in disease activity (achieved an ASAS40 response). The primary end point in study 3 was the proportion of patients who achieved an ASAS20 response. Other disease activity and safety measures were also evaluated. A week 24 analysis of study 1 was preplanned to determine continuation of studies 2 and 3.ResultsFor study 1, the primary and major secondary end points were not met, and the study was discontinued. As a result, studies 2 and 3 were prematurely discontinued before they were fully enrolled. For all 3 studies, neither ustekinumab dose group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement over placebo on key efficacy end points. The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events in the ustekinumab groups was consistent with that in previous studies.ConclusionIn these 3 placebo-controlled trials, efficacy of ustekinumab in the treatment of axial SpA was not demonstrated. The safety profile was consistent with that of studies in other indications.

BackgroundAt present, biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the only treatment recommended for patients with ankylosing spondylitis who have not responded to first-line treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The TORTUGA trial investigated the efficacy and safety of filgotinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.MethodsIn this completed, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, we enrolled adult patients from 30 sites in seven countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Spain, and Ukraine). Eligible patients had active ankylosing spondylitis and an inadequate response or intolerance to two or more NSAIDs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web-based response system to receive filgotinib 200 mg or placebo orally once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by current use of conventional synthetic DMARDs and previous receipt of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. The patients, study team, and study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS) at week 12, which was assessed in the full analysis set (ie, all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). Safety was assessed according to actual treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03117270.FindingsBetween March 7, 2017, and July 2, 2018, 263 patients were screened and 116 randomly assigned to filgotinib (n=58) or placebo (n=58). 55 (95%) patients in the filgotinib group and 52 (90%) in the placebo group completed the study; three (5%) patients in the filgotinib group and six (10%) in the placebo group discontinued treatment. The mean ASDAS change from baseline to week 12 was -1·47 (SD 1·04) in the filgotinib group and -0·57 (0·82) in the placebo group, with a least squares mean difference between groups of -0·85 (95% CI -1·17 to -0·53; p

Objective: Spinal radiographic progression is an important outcome in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). The objective of the phase IIIb SURPASS study was to compare spinal radiographic progression in patients with radiographic axial SpA treated with secukinumab (interleukin‐17A inhibitor) versus adalimumab biosimilar (Sandoz adalimumab [SDZ‐ADL]; tumor necrosis factor inhibitor). Methods: Biologic‐naive patients with active radiographic axial SpA, at high risk of radiographic progression (high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein [hsCRP] ≥5 mg/L and/or ≥1 syndesmophyte[s] on spinal radiographs), were randomized (1:1:1) to secukinumab (150/300 mg) or SDZ‐ADL (40 mg). The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (change from baseline [CFB] in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS] ≤0.5) on secukinumab versus SDZ‐ADL at week 104 (primary endpoint), mean CFB‐mSASSS, proportion of patients with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline with no new syndesmophyte(s), and safety were evaluated. Results: Overall, 859 patients (78.5% male, mSASSS 16.6, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 7.1, hsCRP 20.4 mg/L, and 73.0% with ≥1 syndesmophyte[s]) received secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or SDZ‐ADL (n = 286). At week 104, the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression was 66.1%, 66.9%, and 65.6% (P = not significant, both secukinumab doses) and mean CFB‐mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72 in secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ‐ADL arms, respectively. Overall, 56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3% of patients on secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ‐ADL, respectively, with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline did not develop new syndesmophyte(s) by week 104. There were no unexpected safety findings. Conclusion: Spinal radiographic progression over two years was low with no significant difference between secukinumab and SDZ‐ADL arms. The safety of both treatments was consistent with previous reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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.