Tofacitinib with methotrexate in third-line treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from a phase III trial

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions: a systematic review informing the 2023 EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

OBJECTIVE

To identify the best evidence on the efficacy of pharmacological interventions in reducing fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and to summarise their safety in the identified studies to inform European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs.

METHODS

Systematic review of adults with I-RMDs conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook. Search strategy ran in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, PEDro, OTseeker and PsycINFO. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials were eligible. Assessment of risk of bias, data extraction and synthesis performed by two reviewers independently and in duplicate. Data pooled in statistical meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 4151 records, 455 were selected for full-text review, 99 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 19 RCTs were included in meta-analyses. Adalimumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 12 and 52 weeks in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (n=3 and 2 RCTs; mean difference (MD)= -3.03, p<0.001; MD=-2.25, p=0.03, respectively). Golimumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-5.27, p<0.001), baricitinib (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-4.06, p<0.001), sarilumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.15, p<0.001), tocilizumab (n=3 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.69, p<0.001) and tofacitinib (n=3 RCTs; 12 weeks: MD=-4.44, p<0.001) were also superior to placebo in reducing fatigue in RA. A dose/effect relationship was observed for sarilumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib. In spondyloarthritis (excluding psoriatic arthritis), secukinumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 16 weeks (n=2 RCTs; MD=-4.15, p<0.001), with a dose/effect relationship also observed. The narrative results of the RCTs not included in the meta-analysis indicated that several other pharmacological interventions were efficacious in reducing fatigue, with reassuring safety results.

CONCLUSIONS

Several pharmacological interventions are efficacious and generally safe for managing fatigue in people with I-RMDs.

Potential Mechanism of Fatigue Induction and Its Management by JAK Inhibitors in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases

It is well known that fatigue is a highly disabling symptom commonly observed in inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). Fatigue is strongly associated with a poor quality of life and seems to be an independent predictor of job loss and disability in patients with different rheumatic diseases. Although the pathogenesis of fatigue remains unclear, indirect data suggest the cooperation of the immune system, the central and autonomic nervous system, and the neuroendocrine system in the induction and sustainment of fatigue in chronic diseases. Fatigue does not correspond with disease activity and its mechanism in IRDs. It is suggested that it may change over time and vary between individuals. Abnormal production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), interferons (IFNs), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), TNF, IL-15, IL-17 play a role in both IRDs and subsequent fatigue development. Some of these cytokines such as IL-6, IFNs, GM-CSF, and common gamma-chain cytokines (IL-15, IL-2, and IL-7) activate the Janus Kinases (JAKs) family of intracellular tyrosine kinases. Therapy blocking JAKs (JAK inhibitors - JAKi) has been recently proven to be an effective approach for IRDs treatment, more efficient in pain reduction than anti-TNF. Therefore, the administration of JAKi to IRDs patients experiencing fatigue may find rational implications as a therapeutic modulator not only of disease inflammatory symptoms but also fatigue with its components like pain and neuropsychiatric features as well. In this review, we demonstrate the latest information on the mechanisms of fatigue in rheumatic diseases and the potential effect of JAKi on fatigue reduction.

Discontinuation of tofacitinib and TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of pooled data from two registries in Canada

OBJECTIVES

The similarity in retention of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and tofacitinib (TOFA) was previously reported separately by the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative and the Quebec cohort Rhumadata. However, because of small sample sizes in each registry, we aimed to confirm the findings by repeating the analysis of discontinuation of TNFi compared with TOFA, using pooled data from both these registries.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Pooled data from two rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with RA starting TOFA or TNFi between June 2014 and December 2019 were included. A total of 1318 patients were included TNFi (n=825) or TOFA (n=493).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to discontinuation was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Propensity score (PS) stratification (deciles) and PS weighting were used to estimate treatment effects.

RESULTS

The mean disease duration in the TNFi group was shorter (8.9 years vs 13 years, p<0.001). Prior biological use (33.9% vs 66.9%, p<0.001) and clinical disease activity index (20.0 vs 22.1, p=0.02) were lower in the TNFi group.Discontinuation was reported in 309 (37.5%) and 181 (36.7%) TNFi and TOFA patients, respectively. After covariate adjustment using PS, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in discontinuation due to any reason HR=0.96 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.19, p=0.74)) as well as discontinuation due to ineffectiveness only HR=1.08 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, p=0.61)).TNFi users were less likely to discontinue due to adverse events (AEs) (adjusted HRs: 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74; p=0.001). Results remained consistent for firstline users.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled real-world data study, the discontinuation rates overall were similar. However, discontinuation due to AEs was higher in TOFA compared with TNFi users.

Changes in hemoglobin and clinical outcomes drive improvements in fatigue, quality of life, and physical function in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria: post hoc analyses from the phase III PEGASUS study

Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare, chronic, acquired, hematologic, life-threatening disease characterized by thrombosis, impaired bone marrow function, and complement-mediated hemolysis. The PEGASUS phase III clinical trial demonstrated superiority of pegcetacoplan over eculizumab regarding improvements in hemoglobin levels in patients with suboptimal response to prior eculizumab treatment. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to compare the patient-reported outcome (PRO) response rates observed among PEGASUS participants and the relationships between their PRO scores with clinical and hematological parameters. Data from the 16-week randomized, controlled (1:1 to pegcetacoplan or eculizumab) period of the PEGASUS trial included comparisons of weekly PRO measurements taken using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scales. A clinically meaningful FACIT-F response was defined as an increase from baseline of ≥5 points. Convergent validity was assessed using conventional threshold correlations between FACIT-F, EORTC QLQ-C30, and laboratory parameters. A clinically meaningful improvement in FACIT-F score was seen in 72.2% of pegcetacoplan-treated patients compared to 22.9% of eculizumab-treated patients. At week 16, the FACIT-F total score correlated with hemoglobin levels (r=0.47, p< 0.0001), absolute reticulocyte count (r=−0.37, p<0.01), and indirect bilirubin levels (r=−0.25, p<0.05). Clinically meaningful improvements in pegcetacoplan-treated patients were also observed for multiple EORTC scales. Fatigue and other self-reported outcomes were correlated with clinically meaningful improvements in clinical and hematological parameters. Clinical trial registration: NCT03500549

JAK1/2 Inhibitor Baricitinib Improves Skin Fibrosis and Digital Ulcers in Systemic Sclerosis

Background

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare disabling connective tissue disease with few available treatment options. Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) is associated with high mortality. A previous experiment has shown that JAK2 inhibitor can significantly improve skin fibrosis in bleomycin (BLM)-induced murine model, including reducing dermal thickening and collagen accumulation. We aimed to describe the efficacy of oral JAK1/2 inhibitor baricitinib in SSc patients, especially focusing on skin fibrosis and microvascular manifestations.

Methods

We described the different effects of oral selective JAK1, JAK2, or JAK3 inhibitor treatment in a BLM-induced skin fibrosis mouse model. Furthermore, 10 adult patients with dcSSc were treated with baricitinib. We assessed the changes in modified rodman skin score (mRSS) and digital ulcer net burden at week 12 and 24 from baseline. We also compared the absolute changes in scores on the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SHAQ) and a total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) over a 24-week period.

Results

In the experimental mouse model of skin fibrosis, a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ameliorated skin fibrosis, and a JAK2 inhibitor had the most obvious effect. Treatment with the JAK2 inhibitor also blunted the capillary rarefaction. We demonstrated that skin fibrosis and digital ulcers were significantly relieved in 10 SSc patients treated with baricitinib. The mRSS significantly improved at week 12 from baseline, with a mean change in mRSS of -8.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), -12.03 to -4.574; p = 0.0007] and improved greater at week 24 to -11.67 (95% CI, -16.84 to -6.496; p = 0.0008). Among the four patients with digital ulcers (DU), three were completely healed at week 24, the number of ulcers in another patient was significantly reduced, and there was no patient with new ulcers. Only one adverse event (AE) of herpes zoster was observed.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor alleviates skin fibrosis, and oral JAK1/2 inhibitor baricitinib is a potentially effective treatment for dcSSc patients with skin fibrosis and DU. Baricitinib was well-tolerated by most patients in this study. Additional large clinical trials are needed to confirm our pilot findings.

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Number

ChiCTR2000030995.

The impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from Phase 3 trials

Background

Fatigue, a common symptom of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is detrimental to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and HRQoL and explored associations between fatigue, related patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and disease activity in RA patients.

Methods

This post hoc analysis pooled data from three Phase 3 studies of tofacitinib (ORAL Scan; ORAL Standard; ORAL Sync) in RA patients. Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, placebo, or adalimumab (active control; ORAL Standard only, not powered for superiority) with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Assessed through Month (M)12 were changes from baseline in disease activity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep scale (MOS-SS), and Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) composite/domain scores, and proportions of patients reporting improvements from baseline in FACIT-F total and SF-36 domain scores ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) or ≥ population normative values. Pearson correlations examined associations among PROs at M6. Treatment comparisons were exploratory, with p < 0.05 considered nominally significant.

Results

Generally, active treatment led to significant improvements from baseline in FACIT-F total, and MOS-SS and SF-36 composite/domain scores vs placebo, observed by M1 and maintained through M6 (last placebo-controlled time point). Through M6, more patients achieved improvements from baseline ≥ MCID and achieved scores ≥ population normative values in FACIT-F total and SF-36 domain scores with tofacitinib vs placebo. Through M12, some nominally significant improvements with tofacitinib vs adalimumab were observed. With active treatment at M6, FACIT-F scores were moderately (0.40–0.59) to highly (≥ 0.60) correlated with SF-36 composite/domain scores (particularly vitality), moderately correlated with most MOS-SS domain scores, and highly correlated with MOS-SS Sleep Problems Index I scores. Disease activity correlations were moderate with FACIT-F scores and low (0.20–0.39) to moderate with SF-36 general health domain/composite scores.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib and adalimumab generally conferred significant, clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, sleep, and HRQoL (including vitality) vs placebo through M6, with improvements maintained to M12. M6 correlations between FACIT-F, PROs of sleep, HRQoL, and disease activity underscore the interrelatedness of multiple PROs and disease activity in RA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT00847613 (registered: February 19, 2009); NCT00853385 (registered: March 2, 2009); NCT00856544 (registered: March 5, 2009).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02724-x.

Patient-reported outcomes and realistic clinical endpoints for JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Despite development of multiple classes of therapeutics, health related quality of life in RA remains low. Patients describe impacts of their disease in differing terms than health care providers. (HCPs), stressing importance of pain, fatigue, poor sleep and restrictions in work and social participation.

AREAS COVERED

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessed and analyzed across the phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in RA with the JAK inhibitors (JAKis) are summarized. Patient populations, whether conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug incomplete responders (csDMARD-IR) or biologic DMARD incomplete responders (bDMARD-IR) or csDMARD-naive, report differing baseline scores and placebo responses, generally lower in more treatment experienced patients. Improvements with all the approved JAKis in RA occur rapidly and are often maximal by 12 - 14 weeks; continuing thereafter. The rapidity of benefit reported by patients and convenience of oral administration often lead to increased adherence.

EXPERT OPINION

A broad variety of PROs utilized in the RA RCTs with the JAKis confirm the clinical meaningfulness of their efficacy across treatment-experienced and naive populations. A majority of patients report statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful (≥ minimum clinically important differences, MCID) improvements, with numbers needed to treat (NNTs) ≤ 10 and scores ≥ normative values at endpoint, despite ≤ 12% reporting such scores at baseline.

Janus Kinase Inhibitors Improve Disease Activity and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 24,135 Patients

Pain, fatigue, and physical activity are major determinants of life quality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as effective medications in RA and have been reported to exert direct analgesic effect in addition to reducing joint inflammation. This analysis aims to give an extensive summary of JAK inhibitors especially focusing on pain and patient reported outcomes (PRO). MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on the 26 October 2020, and 50 randomized controlled trials including 24,135 adult patients with active RA met the inclusion criteria. JAK inhibitors yielded significantly better results in all 36 outcomes compared to placebo. JAK monotherapy proved to be more effective than methotrexate in 9 out of 11 efficacy outcomes. In comparison to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, JAK inhibitors show statistical superiority in 13 of the 19 efficacy outcomes. Analgesic effect determined using the visual analogue scale and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates was significantly greater in the JAK group in all comparisons, and no significant difference regarding safety could be explored. This meta-analysis gives a comprehensive overview of JAK inhibitors and provides evidence for their superiority in improving PROs and disease activity indices in RA.

Association Between Janus Kinase Inhibitors Therapy and Mental Health Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic debilitating illness, usually associated with mental health ailments. Literature reports contradictory observations about the association between recent RA pharmacotherapies and mental health. We systematically reviewed RA randomized control trials to synthesize the association between Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors therapy and mental health.

METHODS

We systematically searched clinical trials of JAK inhibitor intervention reporting mental health outcomes using short form-36 (SF-36) in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception to February 2021. We have selected the studies and extracted the data, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We have pooled the mean change of SF-36 mental component score (MCS) between JAK inhibitors and comparator therapy with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Of the 2915 searched studies for systematic review, 19 studies involving 14,323 individuals were included for the meta-analysis. The pooled mean reduction in SF-36 MCS scores (after minus before) with JAK inhibitors was 4.95 (4.41-5.48). The pooled mean difference of incremental mean change in SF-36 MCS score between JAK monotherapy and comparator was 1.53 (0.88-2.18). The improvement in SF-36 MCS scores with JAK inhibitor therapy is greater than the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) value of 2.5. However, on separate analysis with comparator drugs like methotrexate and standard treatment, the MCS scores did not exceeded the MCID value and were also not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

JAK inhibitors results in clinically meaningful improvement in the mental health scores of the RA patients.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID

2021 CRD42021234466.

Patient- and physician-reported outcomes from two phase 3 randomized studies (RAJ3 and RAJ4) of peficitinib (ASP015K) in Asian patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Peficitinib (ASP015K), a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effect of peficitinib on patient- and physician-reported outcomes in Asian patients with RA and an inadequate response to prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

Patients from two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials (RAJ3 and RAJ4) received once-daily peficitinib 100 mg, peficitinib 150 mg, or placebo, alone or in combination with DMARDs (RAJ3), or in combination with methotrexate (RAJ4). Mean changes in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire domain scores from baseline, and percentages of patients achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for patient- and physician-reported outcomes (WPAI, Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index [HAQ-DI], and Subject's Global Assessment of Pain [SGAP]), and Physician's Global Assessment of disease activity (PGA) were evaluated at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 12/early termination (ET).

RESULTS

Data from 1025 patients were analyzed. At week 12/ET in both studies, patients who received peficitinib 100 mg or 150 mg reported significantly improved WPAI domain scores from baseline (except for absenteeism in RAJ4) compared with placebo (both doses, p<0.05). A higher proportion of peficitinib- versus placebo-treated patients achieved MCID in WPAI, HAQ-DI, SGAP, and PGA in studies RAJ3 and RAJ4. Significant differences with peficitinib versus placebo were evident in both studies as early as week 4 in HAQ-DI (peficitinib 150 mg only), SGAP, and PGA, and week 8 in WPAI loss of work productivity and daily activity impairment. At week 12/ET, significantly higher proportions of patients receiving peficitinib versus placebo achieved MCID in HAQ-DI, SGAP, PGA, and WPAI domains of presenteeism (RAJ3 only), loss of work productivity (RAJ3 only), and daily activity impairment (p<0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Peficitinib 100 mg or 150 mg administered daily over 12 weeks resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes that are important to RA patients, including pain, physical function, and work productivity and activity. These observations were reinforced through similar improvements in physicians' rating of disease activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

RAJ3: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02308163 , registered 4 December 2014. RAJ4: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02305849 , registered 3 December 2014.

Efficacy of tofacitinib in reducing pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis

Objective

To describe the efficacy of tofacitinib in reducing pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Methods

Data were collected from patients in seven tofacitinib studies: six phase III (four RA, two PsA) and one phase II study (AS), and grouped into five analysis populations based on rheumatic disease diagnosis and category of prior inadequate response (IR) to treatment: conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-IR (RA and PsA), tumour necrosis factor inhibitors-IR (RA and PsA), or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-IR (AS). Only patients who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo were included. Pain assessments included: Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain, Short-Form Health Survey 36v2 Question (Q)7 and Bodily Pain domain, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Q9 and Q14, EuroQol Five Dimensions Pain/Discomfort dimension and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index Q2 and Q3. Data were reported to month 6 (placebo to month 3) in the RA and PsA populations, and week 12 (tofacitinib and placebo) in the AS population.

Results

Overall, 3330 patients were included in this analysis. In the RA and PsA populations, pain improvements in tofacitinib-treated patients compared with placebo were observed at the earliest time point assessed and at month 3 (maintained to month 6). In the AS population, pain improvements compared with placebo were observed at week 12.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib was associated with rapid and sustained improvements across multiple pain measures in patients with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases.

Joint Statement (DZK, DGRh, DDG) on the Tuberculosis Risk with Treatment Using Novel Non-TNF-Alpha Biologicals

BACKGROUND

 While the risk of tuberculosis (TB) reactivation is adequately documented in relation to TNF-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), the question of what the tuberculosis risk is for newer, non-TNF biologics (non-TNFi) has not been thoroughly addressed.

METHODS

 We conducted a systematic review of randomized phase 2 and phase 3 studies, and long-term extensions of same, published through March 2019. Of interest was information pertaining to screening and treating of latent tuberculosis (LTBI) in association with the use of 12 particular non-TNFi. Only rituximab was excluded. We searched MEDLINE and the ClinicalTrial.gov database for any and all candidate studies meeting these criteria.

RESULTS

 677 citations were retrieved; 127 studies comprising a total of 34,293 patients who received non-TNFi were eligible for evaluation. Only 80 out of the 127 studies, or 63 %, captured active TB (or at least opportunistic diseases) as potential outcomes and 25 TB cases were reported. More than two thirds of publications (86/127, 68 %) mentioned LTBI screening prior to inclusion of study participants in the respective trial, whereas in only 4 studies LTBI screening was explicitly considered redundant. In 21 studies, patients with LTBI were generally excluded from the trials and in 42 out of the 127 trials, or 33 %, latently infected patients were reported to receive preventive therapy (PT) at least 3 weeks prior to non-TNFi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

 The lack of information in many non-TNFi studies on the number of patients with LTBI who were either excluded prior to participating or had been offered PT hampers assessment of the actual TB risk when applying the novel biologics. Therefore, in case of insufficient information about drugs or drug classes, the existing recommendations of the German Central Committee against Tuberculosis should be applied in the same way as is done prior to administering TNFi. Well designed, long-term "real world" register studies on TB progression risk in relation to individual substances for IGRA-positive cases without prior or concomitant PT may help to reduce selection bias and to achieve valid conclusions in the future.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.

High levels of interleukin-6 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis are associated with greater improvements in health-related quality of life for sarilumab compared with adalimumab

Background

Increased levels of cytokines, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), reflect inflammation and have been shown to be predictive of therapeutic responses, fatigue, pain, and depression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but limited data exist on associations between IL-6 levels and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This post hoc analysis of MONARCH phase III randomized controlled trial data evaluated the potential of baseline IL-6 levels to differentially predict HRQoL improvements with sarilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against both soluble and membrane-bound IL-6 receptor α (anti-IL-6Rα) versus adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, both approved for treatment of active RA.

Methods

Baseline serum IL-6 levels in 300/369 randomized patients were categorized into low (1.6–7.1 pg/mL), medium (7.2–39.5 pg/mL), and high (39.6–692.3 pg/mL) tertiles. HRQoL was measured at baseline and week (W)24 and W52 by Short Form 36 (SF-36) physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS) and domain scores, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -fatigue, and duration of morning stiffness visual analog scale (AM-stiffness VAS). Linear regression of changes from baseline in HRQoL (IL-6 tertile, treatment, region as a stratification factor, and IL-6 tertile-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects) assessed predictivity of baseline IL-6 levels, with low tertile as reference. Pairwise comparisons of improvements between treatment groups were performed by tertile; least squares mean differences and 95% CIs were calculated. Similar analyses evaluated W24 patient-level response on minimum clinically important differences (MCID).

Results

At baseline, patients with high versus medium or low IL-6 levels (n = 100, respectively) reported worse (nominal p < 0.05) SF-36 MCS and role-physical, bodily pain, social functioning, role-emotional domain, and AM-stiffness VAS scores. There was a greater treatment effect with sarilumab versus adalimumab in high tertile versus low tertile groups in SF-36 PCS, physical functioning domain, and AM-stiffness VAS (nominal interaction p < 0.05). PCS improvements ≥MCID were higher in high (odds ratio [OR] 6.31 [2.37, 16.81]) versus low (OR 0.97 [0.43, 2.16]) tertiles with sarilumab versus adalimumab (nominal interaction p < 0.05). Adverse events between IL-6 tertiles were similar.

Conclusions

Patients with high baseline IL-6 levels reported better improvements in PCS, physical functioning domain, and AM-stiffness scores with sarilumab versus adalimumab and safety consistent with IL-6R blockade.

Trial registration

NCT02332590. Registered on 5 January 2015

Associations between Patient Global Assessment scores and pain, physical function, and fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials of tofacitinib

Background

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We examined the degree to which Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) was driven by patient-reported assessments of pain (Pain), physical function, and fatigue in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo, each with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs).

Methods

This post hoc analysis used data pooled from three randomized controlled trials in csDMARD-inadequate responder (csDMARD-IR) patients (ORAL Scan: NCT00847613; ORAL Standard: NCT00853385; ORAL Sync: NCT00856544). Using subgroup analysis from 2 × 2 tables, associations between PtGA and Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) at month 3 were evaluated using Pearson’s Phi correlation coefficients. To support the main analysis, associations between select patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also evaluated in csDMARD-naïve (ORAL Start; NCT01039688) and biologic (b)DMARD-IR (ORAL Step; NCT00960440) patients.

Results

Across csDMARD-IR treatment groups, low disease activity (defined as PtGA ≤ 20 mm), and moderate (≥ 30%) and substantial (≥ 50%) improvements from baseline in PtGA were associated with mild Pain (Visual Analog Scale score ≤ 20 mm), and moderate (≥ 30%) and substantial (≥ 50%) improvements from baseline in Pain; lack of Pain improvement was associated with little/no improvement in PtGA. In contrast, large proportions of csDMARD-IR patients who reported PtGA improvements did not report HAQ-DI or FACIT-F scores ≥ normative values (≤ 0.25 and ≥ 43.5, respectively) or changes in HAQ-DI or FACIT-F scores ≥ minimum clinically important difference (≥ 0.22 and ≥ 4.0, respectively). Generally, PtGA and Pain outcomes were moderately-to-strongly correlated at month 3 in csDMARD-IR patients, with weaker correlations evident between PtGA and HAQ-DI/FACIT-F outcomes. Similar findings were generally evident in csDMARD-naïve and bDMARD-IR patients.

Conclusions

This analysis supports the role of Pain as a key driver of PtGA in RA; physical function and fatigue play lesser roles in patients’ perceptions of disease activity. These findings corroborate the importance of improved PROs and attainment of low symptom states for optimizing patient care.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00847613 (registered: February 19, 2009); NCT00853385 (registered: March 2, 2009); NCT00856544 (registered: March 5, 2009); NCT01039688 (registered: December 25, 2009); NCT00960440 (registered: August 17, 2009)

Effect of biologics and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in patients with RA. Since 2007, fatigue has been included as one of the core outcome measures in RA. Clinical trials of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) have included fatigue as a secondary endpoint. A Cochrane review in 2016 concluded that the bDMARDs have a moderate effect on improving fatigue in RA. More recent clinical trials of the new biologic agent sarilumab and the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib showed similar benefits. It remains unclear whether the effect of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs on fatigue is mediated by direct effects or through a reduction in inflammation. As fatigue was a secondary endpoint, many analyses did not adjust for potential confounding factors, including pain, mood and anaemia, which is a significant limitation.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication.

METHODS

A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs.

RESULTS

Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557).

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR).

METHODS

PRO responses between upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated.

RESULTS

In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30 mg) and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

Improvement in sleep outcomes with a 17β-estradiol-progesterone oral capsule (TX-001HR) for postmenopausal women

Objective:

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of TX-001HR, a single-capsule 17β-estradiol–progesterone on sleep parameters in postmenopausal women with vasomotor symptoms (VMS) using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep scale questionnaire in the REPLENISH trial.

Methods:

In the REPLENISH trial (NCT01942668), women were randomized to one of four doses of TX-001HR or placebo, and the 12-item MOS-Sleep questionnaire (secondary endpoint) was self-administered at baseline, week 12, and months 6 and 12. Changes from baseline in the MOS-Sleep total score and 7 subscale scores were analyzed for treatment groups versus placebo at all time points. Somnolence was also collected as an adverse event.

Results:

Women (mean age 55 y) were randomized to TX-001HR (estradiol/ progesterone [E2/P4] [mg/mg]) doses: 1/100 (n = 415), 0.5/100 (n = 424), 0.5/50 (n = 421), 0.25/50 (n = 424), or placebo (n = 151). TX-001HR significantly improved MOS-Sleep total score, Sleep Problems Index II subscale, and sleep disturbance subscale versus placebo at all time points, except with 0.25 mg E2/50 mg P4 at week 12. Differences in LS mean changes between TX-001HR and placebo for MOS-Sleep total scores ranged from −6.5 to −7.6 at 12 months (all; P ≤ 0.001). All doses of TX-001HR significantly improved the Sleep Problems Index I subscale at all time points. The sleep somnolence subscale significantly improved from baseline with 0.5 mg E2/100 mg P4 and 0.5 mg E2/50 mg P4 at month 12. The incidence of somnolence as a treatment-emergent adverse event ranged from 0.2% to 1.2% versus 0% with placebo.

Conclusion:

TX-001HR significantly improved MOS-Sleep parameters from baseline to week 12, which was sustained for up to 12 months, and was associated with a very low incidence of somnolence.

Patient-reported outcomes for tofacitinib with and without methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate, in rheumatoid arthritis: a phase IIIB/IV trial

Objective

To provide the first direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following treatment with tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib or adalimumab (ADA) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).

Methods

ORAL Strategy (NCT02187055), a phase IIIB/IV, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial, assessed non-inferiority between tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day+MTX and ADA 40 mg every other week+MTX. PROs assessed included the following: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) summary and domain scores.

Results

Substantial improvements from baseline were reported across all PROs in all treatment arms, which, in the majority, met or exceeded minimum clinically important differences. Compared with tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib+MTX combination treatment conferred significantly greater improvements in PtGA, Pain and SF-36 physical component summary scores at month 6. Statistically or numerically greater improvements were often, but not uniformly, reported for combination treatments compared with tofacitinib monotherapy at other time points.

Conclusion

Treatment with tofacitinib+MTX, ADA+MTX and tofacitinib monotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in MTX-IR patients with RA. These were comparatively greater with combination treatments versus tofacitinib monotherapy, although differences between treatment arms were small, limiting our ability to confer clinical meaning.

Trial registration number

NCT02187055.

Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib in Chinese Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background:

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study assessed the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in Chinese patients with RA enrolled in Phase 3 and long-term extension (LTE) studies.

Methods:

ORAL Sync was a 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial. Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at 3 or 6 months. All patients remained on ≥1 background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. ORAL Sequel is an open-label LTE study (data-cut: March 2015; data collection and analyses were ongoing, and study database was not locked at the time of analysis; study was closed in 2017). Efficacy outcomes: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4 [ESR]). Patient- and physician-reported outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient and Physician Global Assessment of Arthritis, and pain (visual analog scale). Safety was assessed throughout.

Results:

ORAL Sync included 218 patients; 192 were subsequently enrolled into ORAL Sequel. In ORAL Sync, more patients achieved ACR20 (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, 67.4%; 10 mg BID, 70.6%; placebo, 34.1%) and DAS28-4 (ESR) <2.6 (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, 7.1%; 10 mg BID, 13.1%; placebo, 2.3%) with tofacitinib versus placebo at Month 6. Mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI were greater with tofacitinib versus placebo at Month 6. In ORAL Sequel, efficacy was consistent to Month 48. Incidence rates for adverse events of special interest in tofacitinib-treated patients were similar to the global population.

Conclusions:

Tofacitinib significantly reduced signs/symptoms and improved physical function and quality of life in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severely active RA up to Month 48. The safety profile was consistent with the global population.

Clinical Trial Identifier:

NCT00856544 and NCT00413699.

Clinical efficacy of launched JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis

Tofacitinib and baricitinib are the first orally available, small-molecule inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK) enzymes to be approved for the treatment of RA. Tofacitinib is a selective JAK1, 3 inhibitor with less activity against JAK2 and TYK2 and baricitinib is a selective, oral JAK1, 2 inhibitor with moderate activity against TYK2 and significantly less activity against JAK3. Both drugs have undergone extensive phase III clinical trials in RA and demonstrated rapid improvements in disease activity, function and patient-reported outcomes as well as disease modification. Tofacitinib 5 mg bd, was approved by the Federal Drug Administration in 2012 for the treatment of RA in patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to MTX. An extended release formulation for the treatment of RA was approved by Federal Drug Administration in 2016. In 2017 the European Medicines Agency approved tofacitinib 5 mg bd in combination with MTX and baricitinib 4 mg and 2 mg once daily for the treatment of moderate to severe active RA in adult patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to one or more conventional synthetic DMARDs.

Evaluation of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib by RAPID3: post hoc analyses from two phase 3 trials

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We evaluated the relationship between disease activity, according to Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) after 6-month treatment with tofacitinib, and long-term outcomes at 24 months. This was a post hoc analysis of two 24-month, phase 3, randomized controlled trials in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve (ORAL Start [NCT01039688]) or MTX-inadequate responder patients (ORAL Scan [NCT00847613]) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) as monotherapy or with background MTX. RAPID3 scores were calculated at baseline, month (M)6, and M24, and defined as remission (≤ 3), low (LDA; > 3-≤ 6), moderate (MDA; > 6-≤ 12), or high disease activity (HDA; > 12). Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores, and radiographic non-progression (modified Total Sharp Scores ≤ 0) at M24 were evaluated by M6 RAPID3 response. Among patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID, respectively, 42.2 and 51.5% (ORAL Start) and 29.8 and 39.0% (ORAL Scan) achieved RAPID3 remission/LDA at M6. Most patients maintained/improved RAPID3 responses at M24. A higher proportion of patients in RAPID3 remission/LDA versus MDA/HDA at M6 achieved CDAI remission, reported normative HAQ-DI scores (< 0.5), and achieved both normative HAQ-DI scores and radiographic non-progression at M24. Patients achieving RAPID3 remission/LDA after 6-month treatment with tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID have improved long-term outcomes versus patients with MDA/HDA. These findings support the use of RAPID3 to monitor longer-term disease activity in conjunction with physician-assessed measures.

Long-Term Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Tofacitinib: ORAL Start and ORAL Scan Post-hoc Analyses

Introduction

Here we examine the relationship between achieving different levels of disease activity with tofacitinib (an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis), long-term structural progression, and patient-reported physical function.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of two 24-month, phase III randomized controlled trials in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve (ORAL Start [NCT01039688]) or MTX-inadequate responder (IR) patients (ORAL Scan [NCT00847613]) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily as either monotherapy or with background MTX. The modified total Sharp score (mTSS) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) were analyzed at month 24 according to disease activity at month 6 defined by the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) or the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein (DAS28CRP).

Results

Mean changes from baseline in mTSS at month 24 were less in patients with CDAI remission at month 6 than in those with CDAI moderate/high disease activity (MDA/HDA) at month 6. A DAS28CRP of < 1.9 most closely approximated CDAI remission (≤ 2.8). Tofacitinib appeared to inhibit joint damage in the presence of persistent inflammation compared with MTX. More patients receiving tofacitinib or MTX with CDAI remission or low disease activity (LDA) at month 6 reported normative HAQ-DI scores (< 0.5) at month 24 than did those with CDAI MDA/HDA.

Conclusion

Regardless of treatment, in both MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients, remission or LDA at month 6 was associated with successful long-term outcomes: inhibition of structural progression and normative HAQ-DI scores. Long-term outcomes were similar when patients achieved CDAI remission or a DAS28CRP of < 1.9, confirming that this is an appropriate cut-off for remission with DAS28CRP. Tofacitinib potentially inhibits joint damage even with persistent inflammation.

Funding

Pfizer Inc.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT01039688 and NCT00847613.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-018-0113-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tofacitinib Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Direct Comparison Study between Biologic-naïve and Experienced Patients

Objective This study was designed to directly compare the outcomes of tofacitinib therapy for methotrexate-refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA) between biologic-naïve patients and patients who had experienced an inadequate response to biological agents. Methods We prospectively enrolled and followed 113 patients who had a high or moderate clinical disease activity index (CDAI) (36 biologic-naïve patients and 77 biologic-experienced patients). Patients received 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily. Effectiveness and adverse events were examined at month 6 of treatment. Results At month 6, 65 patients (57.5%) reached CDAI50, which is defined as achieving ≥50% improvement. The number of previous biological agents was twice as high in CDAI50 non-responders as in responders (2.2 versus 1.1, p<0.001), but there was no significant difference in the type of previous agents or the reason for discontinuation. According to a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the previous use of biological agents [odds ratio (OR) 4.48, p=0.002] and the concurrent use of prednisolone (OR 2.40, p=0.047) were associated with a failure to achieve a CDAI 50 response. Biologic-naïve patients were more likely to achieve CDAI50 than biologic-experienced patients (80.6% versus 46.8%, p=0.001). Mean CDAI values were higher in biologic-experienced patients (11.4 versus 4.8, p=0.001), and remission rates were higher in biologic-naïve patients (41.7% versus 11.7%, p=0.001). Biologic-naïve patients more rapidly achieved remission. Rates of discontinuation resulting from adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusion Although tofacitinib can provide an effective treatment option for intractable RA patients, its impact on outcomes is lower in patients with previous biologic failure.

Examination of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Association with TNF-Inhibitor Treatment Response: Results from a US Observational Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy is challenging when the patient and physician prioritize different goals. This study aimed to "translate" improvements in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) to concepts that resonate with patients (such as pain, fatigue, morning stiffness) by examining the association between changes in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a national cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating their first biologic treatment.

METHODS

Patients in the Corrona registry with moderate or high disease activity (M/HDA) (defined by a CDAI score > 10), prior use of at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), 12-month follow-up, and initiating their first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) between 1 January 2006 through 1 November 2015 were identified. Patients were stratified on the basis of CDAI during follow-up, and changes in PROs were compared with a test of trend using CDAI-defined groups.

RESULTS

Of 1570 patients, 37% achieved sustained remission or low disease activity (remission/LDA), 15% had improving remission/LDA, 12% had worsening M/HDA, and 35% were in sustained M/HDA during 12-month follow-up. Those in sustained remission/LDA had greater magnitude of improvement in physical functioning, pain, fatigue, morning stiffness, patient's global assessment, and quality of life compared with patients in sustained M/HDA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Reduction in disease activity was associated with improvements in PROs, with the greatest improvements seen in those who achieved sustained remission/LDA. These results reinforce the benefits of a treat-to-target approach to RA care and may improve dialogue between patients and providers, support shared decision-making, and reduce "clinical inertia."

FUNDING

Corrona, LLC.

Tofacitinib with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Chinese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Patient-reported outcomes from a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial

Aim

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assess the effect of tofacitinib + conventional synthetic disease‐modifying anti rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on patient‐reported outcomes in Chinese patients with RA and inadequate response to DMARDs.

Methods

This analysis of data from the Phase 3 study ORAL Sync included Chinese patients randomized 4 : 4 : 1 : 1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, placebo→tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, or placebo→tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, with csDMARDs. Placebo non‐responders switched to tofacitinib at 3 months; the remaining placebo patients switched at 6 months. Least squares mean changes from baseline were reported for Health Assessment Questionnaire‐Disability Index (HAQ‐DI), patient assessment of arthritis pain (Pain), patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), physician global assessment of disease activity (PGA), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue (FACIT‐F) scores, Short Form 36 (SF‐36), and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), using a mixed‐effects model for repeated measures.

Results

Overall, 216 patients were included (tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, n = 86; tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, n = 86; placebo→tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, n = 22; placebo→tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, n = 22). At month 3, tofacitinib elicited significant improvements in HAQ‐DI, Pain, PtGA, PGA and SF‐36 Physical Component Summary scores. Improvements were generally maintained through 12 months.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily + csDMARDs resulted in improvements in health‐related quality of life, physical function and Pain through 12 months in Chinese patients with RA.

JAK inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for immune and inflammatory diseases

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nrd.2017.201.

JAK inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for immune and inflammatory diseases

The discovery of cytokines as key drivers of immune-mediated diseases has spurred efforts to target their associated signalling pathways. Janus kinases (JAKs) are essential signalling mediators downstream of many pro-inflammatory cytokines, and small-molecule inhibitors of JAKs (jakinibs) have gained traction as safe and efficacious options for the treatment of inflammation-driven pathologies such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. Building on the clinical success of first-generation jakinibs, second-generation compounds that claim to be more selective are currently undergoing development and proceeding to clinical trials. However, important questions remain about the advantages and limitations of improved JAK selectivity, optimal routes and dosing regimens and how best to identify patients who will benefit from jakinibs. This Review discusses the biology of jakinibs from a translational perspective, focusing on recent insights from clinical trials, the development of novel agents and the use of jakinibs in a spectrum of immune and inflammatory diseases.

Patient-reported outcomes of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and no or limited prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment

Background

This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs.

Methods

Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N = 210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N = 159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib + MTX, N = 215). PROs included the Patient’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models.

Results

Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib + MTX at week 52.

Conclusions

In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359. Registered on 18 October 2012.

Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 study of baricitinib versus placebo or adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis: secondary analyses from the RA-BEAM study

Background

To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

In this double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo (n=488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n=487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n=330) with background MTX. PROs included the SF-36, EuroQol 5-D (EQ-5D) index scores and visual analogue scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient’s assessment of pain and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Ttiredness and Worst Joint Pain. The primary study endpoint was at week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables.

Results

Compared with placebo and adalimumab, baricitinib showed statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, FACIT-F, SF-36 physical component score, EQ-5D index scores and WPAI-RA daily activity at week 12. Improvements were maintained for measures assessed to week 52. Statistically significant improvement in patient diary measures (MJS duration and severity), worst tiredness and worst joint pain were observed for baricitinib versus placebo and adalimumab at week 12 (p≤0.05).

Conclusions

Baricitinib provided significantly greater improvement in most PROs compared with placebo and adalimumab, including physical function MJS, pain, fatigue and quality of life. Improvement was maintained to the end of the study (week 52).

Trial registration

NCT01710358.

Tofacitinib in Combination With Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or placebo in combination with conventional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Methods

In a 12‐month, phase III randomized controlled trial (ORAL Sync), patients (n = 795) with active RA and previous inadequate response to therapy with ≥1 conventional or biologic DMARD were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), tofacitinib 10 mg BID, placebo advanced to 5 mg BID, or placebo to 10 mg BID, in combination with stable background DMARD therapy. PROs included patient global assessment of arthritis (PtGA), patient assessment of arthritis pain (Pain), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index [HAQ DI]), health‐related quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey [SF‐36]), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue [FACIT‐F]), and sleep (Medical Outcomes Study Sleep [MOS Sleep]).

Results

At month 3, statistically significant improvements from baseline versus placebo were reported in PtGA, Pain, HAQ DI, all 8 SF‐36 domains, FACIT‐F, and MOS Sleep with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, and in PtGA, Pain, HAQ DI, 7 SF‐36 domains, FACIT‐F, and MOS Sleep with tofacitinib 5 mg BID. Improvements were sustained to month 12. Significantly more tofacitinib‐treated patients reported improvements of greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences at month 3 versus placebo in all PROs, except the SF‐36 role‐emotional domain (significant for tofacitinib 10 mg BID).

Conclusion

Patients with active RA treated with tofacitinib combined with background conventional DMARD therapy reported sustained, significant, and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo.

Efficacy of glucocorticoids, conventional and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the 2016 update of the recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

An SLR for the period between 2013 and 2016 was undertaken to assess the efficacy of glucocorticoids (GCs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (tofacitinib and baricitinib) in randomised clinical trials.

Results

For GCs, four studies were included in the SLR. Patients without poor prognostic factors experienced benefit when GCs were added to methotrexate (MTX). Lower doses of GCs were similar to higher doses. For csDMARDs, two new studies comparing MTX monotherapy with combination csDMARD were included in the SLR. In the tREACH trial at the end of 12 months no difference between the groups in disease activity, functional ability and radiographic progression was seen, using principles of tight control (treat-to-target). In the CareRA trial, combination therapy with csDMARDs was not superior to MTX monotherapy and monotherapy was better tolerated.

For tsDMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib were shown to be more effective than placebo (MTX) in different patient populations.

Conclusions

Addition of GCs to csDMARD therapy may be beneficial but the benefits should be balanced against the risk of toxicity. Under tight control conditions MTX monotherapy is not less effective than combination csDMARDs, but better tolerated. Tofacitinib and baricitinib are efficacious in patients with RA, including those with refractory disease.

Patient-reported outcomes from a phase III study of baricitinib in patients with conventional synthetic DMARD-refractory rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Methods

In this phase III study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo (N=228), baricitinib 2 mg once daily (QD, N=229) or baricitinib 4 mg QD (N=227). PROs included the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, measures from patient electronic daily diaries (duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Tiredness, Worst Joint Pain), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), SF-36, EuroQol 5-D index scores and visual analogue scales (VAS) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA. The primary time point for the study was week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures and analysis of covariance for continuous variables.

Results

Statistically significant improvements were observed for both baricitinib groups versus placebo in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, daily diary measures, EuroQoL index scores and SF-36 physical component score at week 12 and for those measures when assessed at week 24. Baricitinib 2 mg and baricitinib 4 mg were statistically significantly improved versus placebo for the EuroQoL VAS and FACIT-F, respectively, at week 24.

Conclusions

Baricitinib 2 or 4 mg provided significant improvement versus placebo in PROs across different domains of RA, including physical function, MJS, fatigue, pain and quality of life.

Trial registration number

NCT01721057; Results.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomised phase III study of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biological agents (RA-BEACON)

Objectives

To assess baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, who had insufficient response or intolerance to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).

Methods

In this double-blind phase III study, patients were randomised to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg for 24 weeks. PROs included the Short Form-36, EuroQol 5-D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis. Treatment comparisons were performed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables.

Results

527 patients were randomised (placebo, 176; baricitinib 2 mg, 174; baricitinib 4 mg, 177). Both baricitinib-treated groups showed statistically significant improvements versus placebo in most PROs. Improvements were generally more rapid and of greater magnitude for patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg than 2 mg and were maintained to week 24. At week 24, more baricitinib-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients reported normal physical functioning (HAQ-DI <0.5; p≤0.001), reductions in fatigue (FACIT-F ≥3.56; p≤0.05), improvements in PtGA (p≤0.001) and pain (p≤0.001) and reductions in duration of MJS (p<0.01).

Conclusions

Baricitinib improved most PROs through 24 weeks compared with placebo in this study of treatment-refractory patients with previously inadequate responses to bDMARDs, including at least one TNFi. PRO results aligned with clinical efficacy data for baricitinib.

Trial registration number

NCT01721044; Results.

Analysis of haematological changes in tofacitinib-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis across phase 3 and long-term extension studies

OBJECTIVES

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. The aim of this analysis was to characterize changes in haematological parameters following tofacitinib treatment, and to compare changes in haemoglobin with markers of disease activity, fatigue and vitality.

METHODS

Changes in neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts and haemoglobin levels were analysed in patients with RA from six phase 3 randomized controlled trials (n = 4271) of tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg bd, placebo or active comparators of up to 24 months' duration, and two long-term extension (LTE) studies (n = 4858) of tofacitinib of up to 84 months' duration. Disease activity markers included CRP and ESR. Fatigue and vitality were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Short Form Health Survey-36 vitality domain scores.

RESULTS

In phase 3 studies, mean neutrophil and lymphocyte counts decreased and mean haemoglobin levels increased in all tofacitinib treatment groups. Haemoglobin levels and neutrophil counts stabilized in the LTE studies, while lymphocyte count decreases stabilized at approximately month 48. Increased haemoglobin was associated with decreased ESR and CRP levels. Clinically meaningful reductions in haemoglobin levels (⩾3 g/dl from baseline or haemoglobin ⩽7 g/dl) occurred in <1.0% of patients in all treatment groups. FACIT-F and Short Form Health Survey-36 vitality scores were weakly correlated with haemoglobin levels.

CONCLUSION

Small changes in haematological parameters were seen with tofacitinib treatment, which stabilized over time in the LTE studies. Changes in haemoglobin levels, although associated with changes in ESR and CRP, were not associated with fatigue or vitality.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 study of active rheumatoid arthritis

Objective. To evaluate effects of tofacitinib or adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderate to severe RA and inadequate responses to MTX.

Methods. In this 12-month, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (ORAL Standard), patients (n = 717) receiving background MTX were randomized to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo. PROs included HAQ-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis, Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain, health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36]), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue) and sleep (Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep).

Results. At month 3, tofacitinib 10 mg BID treatment resulted in significant changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs, sustained to month 12, with the highest number of patients reporting improvements ⩾minimum clinically important differences vs placebo (P < 0.05). Changes from baseline at month 3 with tofacitinib 5 mg BID and adalimumab were similar and statistically significant vs placebo across most PROs, excluding SF-36 Mental Component Score and Social Functioning, Role Emotional, and Mental Health domains, with significantly more patients reporting improvements ⩾minimum clinically important differences. Numbers Needed to Treat were lowest for tofacitinib 10 mg BID and similar between tofacitinib 5 mg BID and adalimumab.

Conclusion. Patients with moderate to severe RA and inadequate responses to MTX reported improvements across a broad range of PROs with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID and adalimumab that were significantly superior to placebo.

Impact of tofacitinib on patient outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis - review of clinical studies

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic, progressive autoimmune disease associated with inflammation and destruction of joints and systemic effects, which result in significant impact on patient's quality of life and function. Tofacitinib was approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the USA in 2012 and subsequently in other countries, but not by the European Medicines Agency. The goal of this review was to evaluate the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported and patient-specific outcomes from prior clinical studies, focusing on quality of life, functionality, pain, global disease assessment, major adverse consequences, and withdrawals. A total of 13 reports representing 11 clinical studies on tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis were identified through PubMed and reference lists in meta-analyses and other reviews. Data on improvements in patient-driven composite tools to measure disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis, such as the Health Assessment Questionnaire, served as a major outcome evaluated in this review and were extracted from each study. Additional data extracted from those clinical studies included patient assessment of pain (using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale), patient global assessment of disease (using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale), patient withdrawals, withdrawals due to adverse effects or lack of effect, and risk of serious adverse effects, serious infections, and deaths. Tofacitinib 5 mg bid appears to have a favorable impact on patient outcomes related to efficacy and safety when compared with baseline values and with comparator disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and placebo. Improvements were seen in the composite and individual measures of disease activity. Serious adverse effects, other adverse consequences, overall withdrawals, and withdrawals due to adverse effects and lack of efficacy are similar or more favorable for tofacitinib versus comparator disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and placebo. At this point, tofacitinib appears to have an important role in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis through improvement in these patient outcomes. However, it may require years of additional clinical studies and postmarketing surveillance to fully characterize the benefit-to-risk ratio of tofacitinib in a larger and diverse patient population.

Fatigue in chronic inflammation - a link to pain pathways

Fatigue is a frequent symptom in several inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatic diseases. Elements of disease activity and cognitive and behavior aspects have been reported as causes of fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Fatigue could be associated with activity of inflammatory rheumatism. Indeed, biologic agents targeting inflammatory cytokines are effective in fatigue. Fatigue is also associated with pain and depressive symptoms. Different pathways could be involved in fatigue and interact: the immune system with increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin-1 and -6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha), dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and neurological phenomena involving the central and autonomic nervous systems. A pro-inflammatory process could be involved in pain and behavioral symptoms. Inflammation could be a common link between fatigue, pain, and depression.

Update on the 2012 Brazilian Society of Rheumatology Guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: position on the use of tofacitinib

In 2014, tofacitinib, a target-specific, synthetic disease modifying anti rheumatic drug (DMARD) and a selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) was approved for use in Brazil. This position paper aims to update the recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (SBR) on the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Brazil, specifically regarding the use of target-specific synthetic DMARDs. The method of this recommendation consisted of a literature review of scientific papers held on the Medline database. After this review, a text was produced, answering questions in Pico structure, considering efficacy and safety issues of tofacitinib use for RA treatment in different scenarios (such as first-line treatment after failure with methotrexate [MTX] or other conventional synthetic DMARDs after failure with biological therapy). Based on existing evidence, and considering the available data on efficacy, safety and cost of medications available to treat the disease in Brazil, the RA Commission of SBR, after a process of discussion and voting on proposals, established the following position on the use of tofacitinib for treatment of RA in Brazil: "Tofacitinib, alone or in combination with MTX, is an alternative for RA patients with moderate or high activity after failure of at least two different synthetic DMARDs and one biological DMARD." The level of agreement with this recommendation was 7.5. This position may be reviewed in the coming years, in the face of a greater experience with the use of this medication.