Methotrexate in combination with other DMARDs is not superior to methotrexate alone for remission induction with moderate-to-high-dose glucocorticoid bridging in early rheumatoid arthritis after 16 weeks of treatment: the CareRA trial

2023 Management Recommendations of Bangladesh Rheumatology Society on Pharmacological Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis With Synthetic and Biologic Disease-Modifying Drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common inflammatory polyarthritis in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Rheumatology Society (BRS) proposes these management recommendations to treat the considerable burden of RA in the resource-constrained situation based on the best current evidence combined with societal challenges and opportunities. BRS formed a task force (TF) comprising four rheumatologists. The TF searched for all available literature, including updated American College of Rheumatology (ACR), European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR), and Asia-Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) and several other guidelines, and systematic literature reviews until October 2023, and then a steering committee was formed, which included rheumatologists and internists. We followed the EULAR standard operating procedures to categorize levels of evidence and grading of recommendations. This recommendation has two parts -- general (diagnosis of RA, nomenclature of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs [DMARDs], disease activity indices) and management portion. The TF agreed on four overarching principles and 12 recommendations. Overarching principles deal with early diagnosis and disease activity monitoring. Recommendations 1-5 discuss using glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD). Recommendations 6-9 stretch the use of targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) and biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). The suggested DMARD therapy includes initiation with methotrexate (MTX) or another csDMARD (in case of contraindication to MTX) in the first phase and the addition of a tsDMARD in the second phase, switching to an alternative tsDMARDs or bDMARDs in the subsequent phases. The TF included the Padua prediction score for the thromboembolism risk estimation. Recommendations 10-12 cover infection screening, vaccination, and DMARD tapering. Bangladesh has a higher prevalence of RA. This recommendation will serve as a tool to treat this high burden of patients with RA scientifically and more effectively.

Initial glucocorticoid bridging in rheumatoid arthritis: does it affect glucocorticoid use over time?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy.

METHODS

Data from the BeSt, CareRA and COBRA trials were combined in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We compared GC use between bridgers and non-bridgers at 12, 18 and 24 months from baseline with mixed-effects regression analysis. Secondary outcomes were mean cumulative GC dose until 24 months after baseline with and without the bridging period, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) over time and number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) changes.

RESULTS

252/625 patients (40%) were randomised to GC bridging (bridgers). Excluding the period of bridging, later GC use was low in both groups and cumulative doses were similar. Mean DAS28 was similar between the groups, but bridgers improved more rapidly (p<0.001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.94)). GC use was higher in the bridgers at t=12 months (OR 3.27 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.08)) and the bridging schedules resulted in a difference in cumulative GC dose of 2406 mg (95% CI 1403 to 3408) over 24 months.

CONCLUSION

In randomised trials comparing GC bridging and no GC bridging, bridgers had a more rapid clinical improvement, fewer DMARD changes and similar late use of GC compared with non-bridgers. GC bridging per protocol resulted, as could be expected, in a higher cumulative GC dose over 2 years.

Advances in non-biological drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a complex autoimmune disease that affects millions of people worldwide, with a systemic impact. This review explores the role of non-biological conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in its management.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the effectiveness and safety of key csDMARDs such as Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, Hydroxychloroquine, Sulfasalazine, Methotrexate, and Leflunomide in relieving symptoms and slowing the progression of the disease. We also highlight the importance of combination therapy using csDMARDs, supported by clinical studies demonstrating the benefits of various csDMARD combinations. Early intervention with these drugs is emphasized to prevent joint damage, improve clinical symptoms, and enhance patient outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Overall, csDMARDs have proven pivotal in managing RA, providing cost-effective and versatile treatment options. We acknowledge the advantages of biologics but highlight the associated challenges, making the choice between non-biological and biological drugs a personalized decision. This comprehensive overview aims to provide a deeper understanding of RA treatment strategies, contributing to improving the quality of life for patients with this chronic condition.

Rheumatoid arthritis: advances in treatment strategies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterised by severe joint and bone damage due to heightened autoimmune response at the articular sites. Worldwide annual incidence and prevalence rate of RA is 3 cases per 10,000 population and 1%, respectively. Several genetic and environmental (microbiota, smoking, infectious agents) factors contribute to its pathogenesis. Although convention treatment strategies, predominantly Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and Glucocorticoids (GC), are unchanged as the primary line of treatment; novel strategies consisting of biological DMARDs, are being developed and explored. Personalized approaches using biologicals targetspecific pathways associated with disease progression. However, considering the economic burden and side-effects associated with these, there is an unmet need on strategies for early stratification of the inadequate responders with cDMARDs. As RA is a complex disease with a variable remission rate, it is important not only to evaluate the current status of drugs in clinical practice but also those with the potential of personalised therapeutics. Here, we provide comprehensive data on the treatment strategies in RA, including studies exploring various combination strategies in clinical trials. Our systematic analysis of current literature found that conventional DMARDs along with glucocorticoid may be best suited for early RA cases and a combination of conventional and targeted DMARDs could be effective for treating seronegative patients with moderate to high RA activity. Clinical trials with insufficient responders to Methotrexate suggest that adding biologicals may help in such cases. However, certain adverse events associated with the current therapy advocate exploring novel therapeutic approaches such as gene therapy, mesenchymal stem cell therapy in future.

Efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on GC efficacy were identified from a separate search on the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A combined search was performed for the duration of use and safety of GCs in RA patients. Dose-defined and time-defined GC treatment of any dose and duration (excluding intra-articular GCs) prescribed in combination with other DMARDs were considered. Results are presented descriptively. Two included studies confirmed the efficacy of GC bridging as initial therapy, with equal efficacy after 2 years of initial doses of 30 mg/day compared with 60 mg/day prednisone. Based on a recently performed SLR, in clinical trials most patients starting initial GC bridging are able to stop GCs within 12 (22% patients continued on GCs) to 24 months (10% patients continued on GCs). The safety search included 12 RCTs and 21 observational studies. Well-known safety risks of GC use were confirmed, including an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, serious infections, diabetes and mortality. Data on cardiovascular outcomes were Inconsistent. Overall, safety risks increased with increasing dose and/or duration, but evidence on which dose is safe was conflicting. In conclusion, this SLR has confirmed the efficacy of GCs in the treatment of RA. In clinical trials, most patients have shown to be able to stop GCs within 12-24 months. Well-known safety risks of GC use have been confirmed, but with heterogeneity between studies.

Glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis: Balancing benefits and harm by leveraging the therapeutic window of opportunity

Glucocorticoids have been available since the early 1950s and have since become an integral part of the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Due to their rapid effect, glucocorticoids have an appealing profile for treating flares or as "bridging" agents in early RA. The efficacy of glucocorticoids to treat RA has been well established, both to control disease activity and to delay the progression of joint damage. However, despite their benefits, glucocorticoids have equally well-known adverse effects. It is generally accepted that long-term use of glucocorticoids, particularly at higher doses, is not advisable, and recent guidelines for the management of RA therefore either recommend against the use of glucocorticoids or suggest using them only as bridging therapy. Perceptions on the harmful effects of glucocorticoids remain, although mainly based on observational studies. Prolonged glucocorticoid therapy at low doses is still highly prevalent in clinical practice, but recent data suggest a rather favourable risk-benefit balance for this strategy, even in senior patients. Balancing the benefits and risks of treating RA with glucocorticoids thus remains a somewhat controversial topic. This narrative review outlines the historical and current position of glucocorticoids in the management of RA, while summarising recent evidence on their beneficial and detrimental effects. Furthermore, practical strategies for the current use and tapering of glucocorticoids in RA are formulated.

Real-world Effectiveness and Safety of JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Single-centre Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of Baricitinib and Tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in "real world" conditions.

METHODS

A single centre retrospective study was performed including RA patients who had initiated treatment with Baricitinib or Tofacitinib from September-2017 to January-2020. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, efficacy and safety variables were collected from baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24. Effectiveness was evaluated by changes from the baseline in DAS28, SDAI, HAQ and acute phase reactants. Safety analysis included adverse events due to any cause, including infection or intolerance. Infection was considered severe if it implied hospitalization. Statistical analysis consisted in Bayesian mixed ordinal regression models including the monotonic effect of each visit and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 patients were included. A significant reduction of disease activity scores was noted in both groups. No difference between either treatment was detected in terms of effectiveness even in first line, after bDMARD failure, in monotherapy nor combined therapy. A total of 54 adverse events were recorded of which 18 were considered relevant. The incidence of infection, including Herpes Zoster, was similar in both groups. No patients in either group suffered any tuberculosis, thromboembolic event, malignancy, death or cardiovascular adverse events. Survival analysis did not show any difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib and Tofacitinib are both comparable in terms of effectiveness and safety in real world conditions.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update

BACKGROUND

Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document.

RESULTS

The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

The Impact of Traditional Chinese Medicine QingreHuoxue Treatment and the Combination of Methotrexate and Hydroxychloroquine on the Radiological Progression of Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A 52-Week Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used successfully to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). QingreHuoxue treatment (QingreHuoxue decoction [QRHXD]/QingreHuoxue external preparation [QRHXEP]) is a Chinese medicine treatment for RA. To date, very few studies have compared the long-term effects of QRHXD with those of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on RA disease activity and radiological progression. QRHXD delayed the radiological progression and showed long-term clinical efficacy of RA. In clinical experiments, the clinical evidence of delaying the radiological progression of RA patients was obtained. A portion of the patients who participated in the “Traditional Chinese Medicine QingreHuoxue Treatment vs. the Combination of Methotrexate and Hydroxychloroquine for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis” study were followed up for 52 weeks, and intention-to-treat (ITT) and compliance protocol (PP) analyses were used to collect and compare the clinical indicators and imaging data between baseline and week 52. Two radiologists who were blind to treatment scored the images independently. Of the 468 subjects, 141 completed the 52-week follow-up. There were no significant differences among the three groups: the traditional Chinese medicine comprehensive treatment group, the Western medicine treatment group, and the integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine treatment group. There were no differences in the total Sharp score, joint space stenosis score, and joint erosion score at baseline or 52 weeks. In the comparison of the estimated annual radiographic progression (EARP) and the actual annual Sharp total score changes among the three groups, the actual changes were much lower than the EARP at baseline. The radiological progress in all three groups was well controlled. Results of the ITT and PP data sets showed that the disease activity score 28 level of the three groups at 52 weeks was significantly lower than that at baseline. During the 52-week treatment period, the clearance of heat and promotion of blood circulation controlled disease activity and delayed the radiological progress of active RA.

Achieving pain control in early rheumatoid arthritis with baricitinib monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy

Objectives

This post hoc analysis assessed speed, magnitude and maintenance of pain improvement in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving baricitinib, baricitinib and methotrexate (MTX), or MTX over 1 year. Cumulative pain and quality of life benefits were also assessed.

Methods

Randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study RA-BEGIN (NCT01711359) compared baricitinib 4 mg (N=159), baricitinib 4 mg +MTX (N=215) and MTX (N=210) in patients with RA who had no or limited prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment. Pain was assessed on a 0–100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Proportion of patients with ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% pain improvement from baseline; ≤20 mm and ≤10 mm on the pain VAS; and time to achieve pain improvement thresholds were assessed over 52 weeks, as were Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Score (SF-36 PCS) outcomes.

Results

Baricitinib monotherapy or combination with MTX provides greater (least square mean changes (LSM) from baseline −40 mm and −43 mm, respectively) and more rapid (median 12 and 8 weeks to ≥70% improvement, respectively) pain relief than MTX alone (LSM −31 mm, median 20 weeks to ≥70% improvement) over 52 weeks. Baricitinib, alone or combination, provides 9–10 additional weeks of limited to no pain, similar gain in achievable wellness measured through PtGA, and 5–7 additional weeks with change in SF-36 PCS ≥5 vs MTX over 1 year.

Conclusions

Patients treated with baricitinib reported significantly greater and more rapid pain relief, more weeks with limited to no pain, and clinically meaningful improvements in physical health than patients treated with MTX alone over 1 year.

Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Based Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have great potential to differentiate into various types of cells, including but not limited to, adipocytes, chondrocytes and osteoblasts. In addition to their progenitor characteristics, MSCs hold unique immunomodulatory properties that provide new opportunities in the treatment of autoimmune diseases, and can serve as a promising tool in stem cell-based therapy. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune disorder that deteriorates quality and function of the synovium membrane, resulting in chronic inflammation, pain and progressive cartilage and bone destruction. The mechanism of RA pathogenesis is associated with dysregulation of innate and adaptive immunity. Current conventional treatments by steroid drugs, antirheumatic drugs and biological agents are being applied in clinical practice. However, long-term use of these drugs causes side effects, and some RA patients may acquire resistance to these drugs. In this regard, recently investigated MSC-based therapy is considered as a promising approach in RA treatment. In this study, we review conventional and modern treatment approaches, such as MSC-based therapy through the understanding of the link between MSCs and the innate and adaptive immune systems. Moreover, we discuss recent achievements in preclinical and clinical studies as well as various strategies for the enhancement of MSC immunoregulatory properties.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The synergistic efficacy of hydroxychloroquine with methotrexate is accompanied by increased erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether concomitant hydroxychloroquine modulates the increase in erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume (MCV) caused by methotrexate therapy, and whether this is associated with improved clinical response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A retrospective observational analysis was conducted on two independent hospital datasets of biologic-naïve, early-RA patients who started oral methotrexate. Baseline characteristics, DAS28-ESR and monthly MCV after starting methotrexate were obtained. Conventional and machine-learning statistical approaches were applied to the discovery cohort (Cohort-1, 655 patients) and results validated using Cohort 2 (225 patients).

RESULTS

Hydroxychloroquine therapy with methotrexate was associated with a two-fold increase in the likelihood of response defined in this study as clinical remission or low disease activity at 6 months (p < 0.001). The improved clinical outcome of combination hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate therapy was associated with an accelerated rise in MCV from 2 months after commencing therapy. The increase in MCV at three months was equivalent to the contemporaneous reduction in the disease activity score (DAS28-ESR) in predicting clinical response at 6 months. Using latent class mixed modelling, five trajectories of MCV change over six months from baseline were identified. The odds ratio of response to treatment was 16.2 (95% CI 5.7 to 46.4, <ip > <0.001) in those receiving combination therapy classified within the MCV elevation >5fL class, which contained the most patients, compared to methotrexate alone.

CONCLUSION

Our data provides mechanistic insight into the synergistic clinical benefit of concomitant hydroxychloroquine with methotrexate, boosting the rise in MCV which could serve as a companion biomarker of treatment response.

Five-year treat-to-target outcomes after methotrexate induction therapy with or without other csDMARDs and temporary glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis in the CareRA trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes of different treatment schedules from the care in early rheumatoid arthritis (CareRA) trial over 5 years.

METHODS

Patients with RA completing the 2-year CareRA randomised controlled trial were eligible for the 3-year observational CareRA-plus study. 5-year outcomes after randomisation to initial methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy with glucocorticoid bridging (COBRA-Slim) were compared with MTX step-up without glucocorticoids or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations with glucocorticoid bridging, per prognostic patient group. Disease activity (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints calculated with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP)) and functionality (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)) were compared between treatment arms using longitudinal models; safety and drug use were detailed.

RESULTS

Of 322 eligible patients, 252 (78%) entered CareRA-plus, of which 203 (81%) completed the study. Treatments for high-risk patients resulted in comparable DAS28-CRP (p=0.539) and HAQ scores over 5 years (p=0.374). Low-risk patients starting COBRA-Slim had lower DAS28-CRP (p<0.001) and HAQ scores (p=0.041) than those starting only on MTX. At study completion, 114/203 (56%) patients never had their original DMARD therapy intensified, with comparable rates between all treatments. Safety was comparable between treatments in high-risk patients. In low-risk patients, there were 18 adverse events in 10 COBRA-Slim and 36 in 17 patients treated with initial MTX monotherapy (p=0.048). Over 5 years, 22% of patients initiated biologics, 25% took glucocorticoids for >3 months and 17% for >6 months outside the bridging period.

CONCLUSIONS

All intensive treatments with glucocorticoids bridging demonstrated excellent 5 year outcomes. Initiating COBRA-Slim was comparably effective as more complex treatments for high-risk patients with early RA and more effective than initial MTX monotherapy for low-risk patients with limited need for biologics and chronic glucocorticoid use.

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

DESIGN

Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.

SETTING

Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.

RESULTS

812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.

CONCLUSIONS

All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

The clinical effectiveness of intensive management in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: The titrate trial

OBJECTIVES

Many trials have shown that intensive management is effective in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). But its benefits are unproven for the large number of RA patients seen in routine care who have established, moderately active RA and are already taking conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). The TITRATE trial studied whether these patients also benefit from intensive management and, in particular, achieve more remissions.

METHODS

A 12-month multicentre individually randomised trial compared standard care with monthly intensive management appointments which was delivered by specially trained healthcare professionals and incorporated monthly clinical assessments, medication titration and psychosocial support. The primary outcome was 12-month remission assessed using the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR). Secondary outcomes included fatigue, disability, harms and healthcare costs. Intention-to-treat multivariable logistic- and linear regression analyses compared treatment arms with multiple imputation used for missing data.

RESULTS

459 patients were screened and 335 were randomised (168 intensive management; 167 standard care); 303 (90%) patients provided 12-month outcomes. Intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions compared to standard care (32% vs 18%, p = 0.004). Intensive management also significantly increased remissions using a range of alternative remission criteria and increased patients with DAS28-ESR low disease activity scores. (48% vs 32%, p = 0.005). In addition it substantially reduced fatigue (mean difference -18; 95% CI: -24, -11, p<0.001). There was no evidence that serious adverse events (intensive management =15 vs standard care =11) or other adverse events (114 vs 151) significantly increase with intensive management.

INTERPRETATION

The trial shows that intensive management incorporating psychosocial support delivered by specially trained healthcare professions is effective in moderately active established RA. More patients achieve remissions, there were greater improvements in fatigue, and there were no more harms.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescription patterns in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients in routine clinical practice in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To describe disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) patterns in routine clinical practice in adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and to ascertain the reasons for methotrexate (MTX) discontinuation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted from March to October 2014 at the Rheumatology Units of seven hospitals in Spain. In a single visit, the treating rheumatologist completed an online case report form. This report contained sociodemographic and RA variables. This study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice and local and national research legislations.

RESULTS

A total of 301 patients (71% women) with a mean age of 56.7±14.0 years and disease duration of 3.6±1.5 years were examined. The patients had RA with moderate disease activity, at least one poor prognostic factor, and comorbidities. The mean time between RA diagnosis and prescription of the first conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) was 2.4±6.0 months. A total of 295 patients (98%) started the first csDMARD on monotherapy. MTX was the most-prescribed first-line drug (n=233, 79%). The mean treatment time of the first-line csDMARD was 27.0±19.4 months. Of these patients, 98% progressed to a second-line csDMARD; 118 patients were changed to another DMARD, mainly due to inefficacy (51, 37%), adverse events (AEs, 37, 27%), or intolerance (18, 13%). The use of MTX as second-line therapy reduced from 79% to 51%. At the time of the study, 200 patients (66%) received a csDMARD as monotherapy and 45 (15%) a combination of ≥2 csDMARDs. Fifty-five (18%) patients were being treated with a biological drug in monotherapy (16, 29%) or in a combination with a csDMARD (39, 71%), mainly MTX, 147 patients (57%) received steroids. Biological DMARD were prescribed as the second line for 42% of patients and 51% of patients received the third-line therapy or beyond. The rate of AEs that motivated a change in the csDMARD was 34%.

CONCLUSION

MTX was the most-used csDMARD as first and second-line therapy together with corticosteroids. The combination of two or more csDMARDs as first-line treatment was very infrequent. MTX toxicity and intolerance were higher and more significant than inefficacy but progressively decreased with use.

Leflunomide monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective study

Leflunomide (LEF) is a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, there are few reports on the comparison of efficacy between LEF alone and combined with other csDMARDs. Here, the efficacy and safety of LEF monotherapy (88) and combination (361) therapy groups were evaluated. After 3 months, there were no significant differences in 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) between the monotherapy and combination groups (all P > 0.05). According to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, it was found that the DAS28 response rates were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). Besides, the two groups presented similar safety profiles. Subgroup analysis found that there was no difference in efficacy among the three combined therapies (LEF + methotrexate (MTX), LEF + hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and LEF + MTX + HCQ) and LEF monotherapy. Furthermore, when the dose of LEF was less than 40 mg/day, no significant difference in efficacy was observed between low and high doses. Overall, these results indicated that low dose LEF monotherapy was not inferior to the combination therapy.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose glucocorticoids combined with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis: A single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Glucocorticoids (GCs), especially low-dose GCs, are commonly prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), although the risk/benefit ratio is controversial. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral GCs combined with methotrexate (MTX) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in early RA (ERA).

METHODS

Eighty untreated ERA patients were randomized into the trial (GCs + MTX + HCQ) and control (placebo + MTX + HCQ) groups, for 1-year treatment. Therapeutic evaluation indices were American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 of ACR, disease activity score (DAS) 28- erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), visual analog scale scores, joint function, health assessment questionnaire-disability index score, morning stiffness duration, C-reaction protein and ESR. The clinical indicators were evaluated pre-treatment and at 1st, 3th, 6th and 12th month of treatment. The MRI data of single joint (ie, the most swollen joint) for each patient were acquired with a revised OMERACT RAMRIS Scoring System before and after treatment. The correlation analysis was adopted to confirm whether the efficacy of GC treatment is related to the time of RA onset. The side effects (eg, gastrointestinal reactions, liver dysfunction, upper respiratory tract infection, leukocyte reduction) were also monitored.

RESULTS

At 1st month, 55% and 20% cases in the experimental and control groups achieved ACR20 response, respectively, indicating a significant difference (χ = 16.157, P < .001). This trend continued until 6th month. At 12th month, the number of patients achieved ACR20 response was similar in both groups. At 1st to 6th month, DAS28- ESR scores in the experimental group were significantly lower than control values (all p < .05). The experimental group showed improved inflammation, quality of life and radiological symptoms. Bone erosion remained unchanged in the experimental group, while worsening in control group. Correlation coefficients between RA duration and DAS28-ESR score were 0.496, 0.464, 0.509, and 0.550 at 1st, 3th, 6th, and 12th month, respectively. No differences were found in adverse events between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose GCs combined with MTX and HCQ significantly achieves disease remission indexed by ACR20 and DAS28-ESR, and improves clinical and radiological outcomes in ERA patients at the early stage, with superiority over placebo + MTX + HCQ, without enhancing adverse reactions.

[Assessment of the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of first Russian generic aceclofenac in patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis]

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of the drug in patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We observed 60 patients (39 women and 21 men) met G. Hazlewood et al., UPIA criteria, 2011. Patients were divided into 3 groups: with monoarthritis, oligoarthritis and polyarthritis. They took aceclofenac 100 mg twice day for 3 weeks.

RESULTS

We noted significant decreasing in pain level according to visual analogue scale: in patients with monoarthritis by 69.3 mm (p0.001); in oligoarthritis group by 47.5 mm (p0.001), in patients with polyarthritis by 30 mm (p0.001). The life quality by the EQ-5D-5L index was improved too in all groups from 0.616 to 0.829 (p0.001). The satisfaction with the therapy was: in monoarthritis patients (80% of patients and 93% of doctors noted good results), in oligoarthritis group (53% and 39% accordingly) and polyarthritis (74% and 64% respectively). We suppose the difference was due to the fact that mono- and oligoarthritis patients suffered from initial forms of seronegative spondylarthropathy, in which the effectiveness of NSAIDs is traditionally higher; polyarthritis patients probably had debut of rheumatoid arthritis. Adverse events of therapy were mild. We noted gastrointestinal tract symptoms (dyspepsia) and increased ALT in 10 patients and increased blood pressure in 1 patient. The symptoms did not require discontinuation of therapy. Сonclusion. Post-registration observational study of first Russian generic aceclofenac (Alental, Vertex, Russia) was conducted. In UPIA patients aceclofenac therapy was most effective in mono- and oligoarthritis patients. The first Russian generic aceclofenac (Alental, Vertex, Russia) has good efficacy, tolerability and safety and can be recommended for arthritis treatment.

Effectiveness of different combinations of DMARDs and glucocorticoid bridging in early rheumatoid arthritis: two-year results of CareRA

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether MTX should be combined with an additional DMARD and bridging glucocorticoids as initial treatment for patients with early RA to induce an effective long-term response.

METHODS

The Care in early RA study is a two-year investigator-initiated pragmatic multicentre randomized trial. Early RA patients, naïve to DMARDs and glucocorticoids, were stratified based on prognostic factors. High-risk patients were randomized to COBRA-Classic (n = 98): MTX, sulfasalazine, prednisone step-down from 60 mg; COBRA-Slim (n = 98): MTX, prednisone step-down from 30 mg; or COBRA-Avant-Garde (n = 93): MTX, leflunomide, prednisone step-down from 30 mg. Low-risk patients were randomized to COBRA-Slim (n = 43); or Tight Step Up (TSU) (n = 47): MTX without prednisone. Clinical/radiological outcomes at year 2, sustainability of response, safety and treatment adaptations were assessed.

RESULTS

In the high-risk group 71/98 (72%) patients achieved a DAS28-CRP < 2.6 with COBRA-Slim compared with 64/98 (65%) with COBRA-Classic and 69/93 (74%) with COBRA-Avant-Garde (P = 1.00). Other clinical/radiological outcomes and sustainability of response were similar. COBRA-Slim treatment resulted in less therapy-related adverse events compared with COBRA-Classic (P = 0.02) or COBRA-Avant-Garde (P = 0.005). In the low-risk group, 29/43 (67%) patients on COBRA-Slim and 34/47 (72%) on TSU achieved a DAS28-CRP < 2.6 (P = 1.00). On COBRA-Slim, low-risk patients had lower longitudinal DAS28-CRP scores over 2 years, a lower need for glucocorticoid injections and a comparable safety profile compared with TSU.

CONCLUSION

All regimens combining DMARDs with glucocorticoids were effective for patients with early RA up to 2 years. The COBRA-Slim regimen, MTX monotherapy with glucocorticoid bridging, provided the best balance between efficacy and safety, irrespective of patients' prognosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01172639.

Two-year cost-effectiveness of different COBRA-like intensive remission induction schemes in early rheumatoid arthritis: a piggyback study on the pragmatic randomised controlled CareRA trial

Objectives

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies among recently diagnosed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using methotrexate (MTX) and a step-down glucocorticoid (GC) scheme (COBRA Slim) compared with (1) this combination with either sulphasalazine (COBRA Classic) or leflunomide (COBRA Avant-Garde) in high-risk patients and (2) MTX without GCs (Tight-Step-Up, TSU) in low-risk patients.

Methods

The incremental cost-utility was calculated from a healthcare perspective in the intention-to-treat population (n=379) of the 2-year open-label pragmatic randomised controlled Care in early RA trial. Healthcare costs were collected prospectively through electronic trial records. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using mapping algorithms for EuroQoL-5 Dimension. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data and bootstrapping to calculate CIs. Robustness was tested with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at biosimilar prices.

Results

In the high-risk group, Classic (∆k€1.464, 95% CI −0.198 to 3.127) and Avant-Garde (∆k€0.636, 95% CI −0.987 to 2.258) were more expensive compared with Slim and QALYs were slightly worse for Classic (∆−0.002, 95% CI −0.086 to 0.082) and Avant-Garde (∆−0.009, 95% CI −0.102 to 0.084). This resulted in the domination of Classic and Avant-Garde by Slim. In the low-risk group, Slim was cheaper (∆k€−0.617, 95% CI −2.799 to 1.566) and QALYs were higher (∆0.141, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.274) compared with TSU, indicating Slim dominated. Results were robust against the price of biosimilars.

Conclusions

The combination of MTX with a GC bridging scheme is less expensive with comparable health utility than more intensive step-down combination strategies or a conventional step-up approach 2 years after initial treatment.

Trial registration number

NCT01172639.

[Oral glucocorticoids : Therapeutic use and treatment monitoring in inflammatory rheumatic diseases]

Glucocorticoids (GC) have been proven drug substances in rheumatology for more than 70 years. They act very rapidly in high doses through membrane stabilizing effects. Genomic therapeutic effects of GC even in very low doses are mainly due to inhibition of the functions of the transcription factor nuclear factor kappa B (NFkB), which promotes the synthesis of proinflammatory mediators, adhesion molecules and other regulatory proteins. Indications for the use of GC in high doses in rheumatology are always given when a life-threatening, dangerous or treatment-resistant situation is involved. Lower doses of GC, usually administered orally, are particularly used in rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis and collagenosis. In clinical practice the general principle is to use the smallest possible effective dose of GC for the shortest possible time in order to achieve the therapeutic effect of GC without running the risk of unacceptably severe side effects.

Dose reduction and withdrawal strategy for TNF-inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: design of a pragmatic open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in the treatment of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), including psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, these drugs come with some disadvantages such as adverse events, practical burden for patients and high costs. Dose optimisation of TNFi after patients have reached low disease activity (LDA) has been shown feasible and safe in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, data on TNFi dose optimisation in PsA and axSpA are scarce, especially pragmatic, randomised strategy studies.

METHODS

We developed an investigator-driven, pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial (DRESS-PS) to compare the effects of a disease activity-guided treat-to-target strategy with or without a tapering attempt in patients with SpA (PsA and axSpA combined), ≥ 16 years of age, who are being treated with TNFi, and have had at least 6 months of low disease activity. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients in LDA after 12 months of follow up. Patients are assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow up. Bayesian power analyses with a weakened prior based on a similar study performed in RA resulted in a sample size of 95 patients in total.

DISCUSSION

More knowledge on disease activity-guided treatment algorithms would contribute to better treatment choices and cost savings and potentially decrease the risk of side effects. In this article we elucidate some of our design choices on TNFi dose optimisation and its clinical and methodological consequences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register, NL6771. Registered on 27 November 2018 (CMO NL66181.091.18, 23 October 2018).

The effects of methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine combination therapy vs methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis patients

Objectives

To investigate the added value of MTX-HCQ combination therapy (CTG) in early RA in a controlled cohort study. MTX monotherapy (MTG) is recommended as (part of) first choice treatment but no head-to-head comparisons are available comparing MTX-HCQ CTG with MTG.

Methods

RA patients from the Sint Maartenskliniek and Radboudumc Nijmegen who started MTX with or without concomitant HCQ from April 2010 to October 2015 were included. The primary outcome was the between-group ΔDAS28-CRP at 6 months, and secondary outcomes were ΔDAS28-CRP at 12 months, EULAR response at 6 and 12 months, and treatment intensification. Regression modelling was used to correct for confounding.

Results

We included 325 patients, with only small between-group differences at baseline. The DAS28-CRP improvement at 6 months was larger in the CTG (Δ = 0.38 (CI: 0.01, 0.76)), and the difference between groups in DAS28-CRP improvement was smaller at 12 months (Δ = 0.22 points (CI:-0.19, -0.62)). At 6 months, a higher percentage of patients had a good EULAR response in the CTG (Δ = 15% (CI: 2.7%, 27%)). This difference was reduced at 12 months (Δ = 6% (CI -6.4%, 19%)). Treatment intensification with conventional synthetic DMARDs was more likely in the MTG (Δ = 31% (CI: -43%, 19%)). The proportion of patients starting biologic DMARD treatment during the observation period was comparable (Δ = 2% (CI: -8%, 12%)).

Discussion

In contrast to indirect comparison review data, MTX-HCQ seems somewhat more effective after 6 months than MTX monotherapy in early RA patients. After 12 months, we observed no significant differences between the two strategies, probably due to treat-to-target efforts.

A core-shell structure QRu-PLGA-RES-DS NP nanocomposite with photothermal response-induced M2 macrophage polarization for rheumatoid arthritis therapy

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a degenerative joint disease caused by autoimmunity; for the effective treatment of RA while avoiding the side effects of conventional drugs, we have proposed a new therapeutic strategy to eliminate the inflammatory response in RA by regulating the immune system that promotes the transformation of M1-type macrophages to M2-type macrophages. Herein, we designed and synthesized a core-shell nanocomposite (QRu-PLGA-RES-DS NPs), which showed an effective therapeutic effect on RA by accurately inducing the polarization of M2 macrophages. In this system, the quadrilateral ruthenium nanoparticles (QRuNPs) with a photothermal effect were utilized as a core and the thermosensitive molecular poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) modified with the targeted molecule dextran sulfate (DS) was employed as a shell. Then, the nanocarrier QRu-PLGA-DS NPs effectively improved the water solubility and targeting of resveratrol (RES) through self-assembly. Therefore, the QRu-PLGA-RES-DS NPs significantly enhanced the ability of RES to reverse the M1 type macrophages to the M2 type macrophages through an accurate release. In vivo experiments further demonstrated that the QRu-PLGA-RES-DS NPs could effectively accumulate in the lesion area with an exogenous stimulus, and this significantly enhanced the transformation of the M2 type macrophages and decreased the recruitment of the M1 type macrophages. Furthermore, the QRu-PLGA-RES-DS NPs effectively treated RA by eliminating the inflammatory response; in addition, photoacoustic imaging (PA) of the QRu NPs provided image guidance for the distribution and analysis of nanomedicine in inflammatory tissues. Hence, this therapeutic strategy promotes the biological applications of Ru-based nanoparticles in disease treatment.

Suppression of joint destruction with subcutaneous tocilizumab for Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy of suppressing joint destruction with subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC) for Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in the real-world clinical setting.Methods: This 1-year prospective, multicenter study included 110 RA patients in whom TCZ-SC was newly initiated. Primary endpoint was the change from baseline in vdH-modified total Sharp score (mTSS) at week 52. Structural remission was defined as yearly mTSS of 0.5 or less. Disease activity was evaluated using the disease activity score (DAS28-ESR) and clinical disease activity index (CDAI).Results: At baseline, the patients' mean age was 58.6 years, and the mean disease duration was 10.6 years. The proportion of patients who were naïve for biologics was 44.5%, and 64.5% concomitantly received methotrexate. The yearly mTSS showed significant improvement from 9.41 before TCZ-SC initiation to -0.15 after 52 weeks. The structural remission rate was 76.1%. After 52 weeks, the DAS28-ESR and CDAI remission rates were 52% and 21%, respectively. Although the previous usage of biologics and baseline disease activity significantly affected the clinical remission, no factors with significant effects on structural remission were identified.Conclusion: These findings support the efficacy of TCZ-SC in suppressing disease activity as well as joint destruction over a 1-year period.

JAK inhibitors for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases

Cytokines play a central role in the pathophysiology of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Several cytokines signal through the JAK-STAT pathway, which is now recognized as a major target to inhibit the effect of a wide array of cytokines. JAK inhibitors are increasingly used in the setting of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. While the currently approved drugs are panJAK inhibitors, more selective small molecules are being developed and tested in various rheumatic disorders. In this extensive review, we present evidence- or hypothesis-based perspectives for these drugs in various rheumatologic conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, giant cell arteritis, and autoinflammatory diseases.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2019 updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology

The expanding range of treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), biosimilar bDMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, has improved patient outcomes but increased the complexity of treatment decisions. These updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology provide guidance on the management of RA, with a focus on how to integrate newly available DMARDs into clinical practice. The recommendations were developed based on evidence from the literature along with local expert opinion. Early diagnosis of RA and prompt initiation of effective therapy remain crucial and we suggest a treat-to-target approach to guide optimal sequencing of DMARDs in RA patients to achieve tight disease control. Newly available DMARDs are incorporated in the treatment algorithm, resulting in a greater range of second-line treatment options. In the event of treatment failure or intolerance, switching to another DMARD with a similar or different mode of action may be considered. Given the variety of available treatments and the heterogeneity of patients with RA, treatment decisions should be tailored to the individual patient taking into consideration prognostic factors, medical comorbidities, drug safety, cost of treatment, and patient preference.

[S2e guideline: treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying drugs]

BACKGROUND

Medication-based strategies to treat rheumatoid arthritis are crucial in terms of outcome. They aim at preventing joint destruction, loss of function and disability by early and consistent inhibition of inflammatory processes.

OBJECTIVE

Achieving consensus about evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Germany.

METHODS

Following a systematic literature research, a structured process among expert rheumatologists was used to reach consensus.

RESULTS

The results of the consensus process can be summed up in 6 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. There are several new issues compared to the version of 2012, such as differentiated adjustments to the therapeutic regime according to time point and extent of treatment response, the therapeutic goal of achieving remission as assessed by means of the simplified disease activity index (SDAI) as well as the potential use of targeted synthetic DMARDs (JAK inhibitors) and suggestions for a deescalating in case of achieving a sustained remission. Methotrexate still plays the central role at the beginning of the treatment and as a combination partner in the further treatment course. When treatment response to methotrexate is inadequate, either switching to or combining with another conventional synthetic DMARD is an option in the absence of unfavourable prognostic factors. Otherwise biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs are recommended according to the algorithm. Rules for deescalating treatment with glucocorticoids and-where applicable-DMARDs give support for the management of patients who have reached a sustained remission.

DISCUSSION

The new guidelines set up recommendations for RA treatment in accordance with the treat-to-target principle. Modern disease-modifying drugs, now including also JAK inhibitors, are available in an algorithm.

The perspective of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis on the journey from symptom onset until referral to a rheumatologist

Objective

Timely treatment of patients with early RA (ERA) favours a beneficial disease outcome. However, individuals often delay their contact with a health-care professional (HCP) after ERA-related symptom onset. The aim of this study was to investigate the perspective of patients on the journey of a patient from RA symptom onset until referral to a specialist.

Methods

A subgroup of patients with ERA from the Care in ERA (CareRA) trial were interviewed retrospectively to discuss their initial ERA-related experiences preceding diagnosis, using a bespoke assessment form. The first section of the form focused on initial symptoms and help-seeking behaviour by the patients. The second part probed the actions of the HCPs consulted. Additional notes derived from the patient stories were analysed thematically.

Results

Among 94 patients, pain (97%), swelling (73%) and stiffness (52%), typically in multiple joints, were reported as initial ERA symptoms. The general practitioner (GP) was generally the first HCP to be contacted (87%). Frequently reported reasons to visit an HCP were intense pain (90.4%) and difficulties in performing daily activities (69%). In 44.1% of patients, the HCP suspected ERA at the first visit. Approximately 25% of patients needed more than five visits before detection of ERA. GPs mainly referred patients to rheumatologists (71%). Thematic analysis uncovered that multiple HCPs were often involved in the journey to RA detection and referral.

Conclusion

Pain is the most commonly reported initial symptom of ERA and the main reason to visit an HCP, usually a GP. These GPs play a pivotal role in early detection and correct referral. Furthermore, the journey of a patient seems complex, often with multiple HCPs being involved.

Does Triple Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy Improve upon Methotrexate as the Initial Treatment of Choice for a Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient?

Although many treatment options exist for the initial management of rheumatoid arthritis, there has long been discussion about whether initial treatment should be with methotrexate (MTX) as monotherapy or in combination with other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Although studies initially showed additional benefit from combining MTX with other csDMARDs, this benefit disappears when glucocorticoids are added to MTX, a strategy recommended in current guidelines as a short-term bridging approach until MTX therapy exhibits its full efficacy. Also concomitant use of glucocorticoids, with MTX may not be inferior to combination therapy of MTX with TNF-inhibitors.

Update of the Mexican College of Rheumatology Guidelines for the Pharmacological Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, 2018

Therapeutic advances in rheumatoid arthritis require periodic review of treatment guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To update the Mexican College of Rheumatology guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHOD

Board certified rheumatologists from different health institutions and regions of the country participated. Work teams were formed that reviewed the previous guidelines, elaborated new questions, reviewed the literature, and scored the evidence that was presented and discussed in plenary session. The conclusions were presented to infectologists, gynaecologists and patients. Recommendations were based on levels of evidence according to GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Updated recommendations on the use of available medications for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in Mexico up to 2017 are presented. The importance of adequate and sustained control of the disease is emphasized and relevant safety aspects are described. Bioethical conflicts are included, and government action is invited to strengthen correct treatment of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated recommendations of the Mexican College of Rheumatology on the pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis incorporate the best available information to be used in the Mexican health care system.

Risks and benefits of corticosteroids in arthritic diseases in the clinic

Glucocorticoids (GCs) constitute a first line treatment for many autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Due to their potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive actions, GCs are added frequently to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in various arthritic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis. However, their prolonged administration or administration at high doses is associated with adverse effects that may be (quality of) life-threatening, including osteoporosis, metabolic, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects. In this review, we summarize the clinical and pharmacological effects of GCs in different arthritic diseases, while documenting the current research efforts towards the identification of novel and more efficient GCs with reduced side effects.

2018 update of the APLAR recommendations for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

To update recommendations based on current best evidence concerning the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), focusing particularly on the role of targeted therapies, to inform clinicians on new developments that will impact their current practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of relevant literature from 2014 to 2016 concerning targeted therapies in RA was conducted. The RA Update Working Group evaluated the evidence and proposed updated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, to describe the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Recommendations were finalized through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS

This update provides 16 RA treatment recommendations based on current best evidence and expert clinical opinion. Recommendations 1-3 deal with the use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The next three recommendations (4-6) cover the need for screening and management of infections and comorbid conditions prior to starting targeted therapy, while the following seven recommendations focus on use of these agents. We address choice of targeted therapy, switch, tapering and discontinuation. The last three recommendations elaborate on targeted therapy for RA in special situations such as pregnancy, cancer, and major surgery.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatoid arthritis remains a significant health problem in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with RA can benefit from the availability of effective targeted therapies, and these updated recommendations provide clinicians with guidance on their use.

Bulgarian rheumatology: science and practice in a cost-constrained environment

Our aim was to appraise publications from Bulgaria, to assess their global impact, and to describe features and challenges unique to the rheumatology practice in Bulgaria characterized by stringent cost constraints. The Scopus database was queried on 25th July 2018 and data on the number of published documents, their Hirsch-indices and citations number were extracted. Published Bulgarian guidelines for the management of rheumatic diseases and the presented data on Bulgarian Rheumatology Society were identified based on prior knowledge of the authors. From all the identified 1082 document the most extensively researched areas were rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis (OA). For the last five years (from Jan 2013 to 25th July 2018) the number of publications was 293. We found that Bulgaria's international scientific collaboration in the field of rheumatology is focused on a handful of countries mainly from Europe. Although Bulgarian rheumatologists have access to costly biologic agents for treating their patients with rheumatic diseases, their funding may not be granted according to the current recommendations of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) and national guidelines for the management of rheumatic diseases. Although the western world clearly dominates the production of scientific publications in rheumatology, Bulgarian rheumatology may present another perspective for diagnosis and management of patients with rheumatic diseases in a cost-stringent environment. Nevertheless, both rheumatology science and practice in Bulgaria still have a long way to go to take its deserved place among the other European countries.

Recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in the Eastern Mediterranean region: an adolopment of the 2015 American College of Rheumatology guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines can assist rheumatologists in the proper prescription of newer treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this paper is to report on the recommendations for the management of patients with RA in the Eastern Mediterranean region. We adapted the 2015 American College of Rheumatology guidelines in two separate waves. We used the adolopment methodology, and followed the 18 steps of the "Guidelines 2.0" comprehensive checklist for guideline development. For each question, we updated the original guidelines' evidence synthesis, and we developed an Evidence Profile (EP) and an Evidence to Decision (EtD) table. In the first wave, we adoloped eight out of the 15 original questions on early RA. The strength changed for five of these recommendations from strong to conditional, due to one or more of the following factors: cost, impact on health equities, the balance of benefits, and harms and acceptability. In the second wave, we adoloped eight out of the original 44 questions on established RA. The strength changed for two of these recommendations from strong to conditional, in both cases due to cost, impact on health equities, balance of benefits and harms, and acceptability. The panel also developed a good practice recommendation. We successfully adoloped 16 recommendations for the management of early and established RA in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The process proved feasible and sensitive to contextual factors.

14-3-3η protein: a promising biomarker for rheumatoid arthritis

Effective management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) depends on early identification followed by timely invention and proper monitoring of treatment responses which remain challenges facing rheumatologists for lacking biomarkers of high sensitivity and specificity. 14-3-3η has been reported to be a novel RA-related biomarker inducing the expression of multiple factors mediating the pathogenesis of RA, and increasing the diagnostic capture when combined with rheumatoid factor and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody. Besides, elevated serum 14-3-3η was relevant to more serious joint erosion and worse therapy outcomes. Here, we summarized the emerging knowledge regarding the roles 14-3-3η plays in RA and its clinical implications as diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic response surrogate as well as potential drug target for RA.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care.

DATA SOURCES

Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease.

LIMITATIONS

TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients).

CONCLUSION

In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

2017 recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology for the pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The objective of this document is to provide a comprehensive update of the recommendations of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology on drug treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on a systematic literature review and on the opinion of a panel of rheumatologists. Four general principles and eleven recommendations were approved. General principles: RA treatment should (1) preferably consist of a multidisciplinary approach coordinated by a rheumatologist, (2) include counseling on lifestyle habits, strict control of comorbidities, and updates of the vaccination record, (3) be based on decisions shared by the patient and the physician after clarification about the disease and the available therapeutic options; (4) the goal is sustained clinical remission or, when this is not feasible, low disease activity. Recommendations: (1) the first line of treatment should be a csDMARD, started as soon as the diagnosis of RA is established; (2) methotrexate (MTX) is the first-choice csDMARD; (3) the combination of two or more csDMARDs, including MTX, may be used as the first line of treatment; (4) after failure of first-line therapy with MTX, the therapeutic strategies include combining MTX with another csDMARD (leflunomide), with two csDMARDs (hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine), or switching MTX for another csDMARD (leflunomide or sulfasalazine) alone; (5) after failure of two schemes with csDMARDs, a bDMARD may be preferably used or, alternatively a tsDMARD, preferably combined, in both cases, with a csDMARD; (6) the different bDMARDs in combination with MTX have similar efficacy, and therefore, the therapeutic choice should take into account the peculiarities of each drug in terms of safety and cost; (7) the combination of a bDMARD and MTX is preferred over the use of a bDMARD alone; (8) in case of failure of an initial treatment scheme with a bDMARD, a scheme with another bDMARD can be used; in cases of failure with a TNFi, a second bDMARD of the same class or with another mechanism of action is effective and safe; (9) tofacitinib can be used to treat RA after failure of bDMARD; (10) corticosteroids, preferably at low doses for the shortest possible time, should be considered during periods of disease activity, and the risk-benefit ratio should also be considered; (11) reducing or spacing out bDMARD doses is possible in patients in sustained remission.

Comparison between low disease activity or DAS remission as treatment target in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To compare outcomes of targeted treatment aimed at either low disease activity or remission in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Five-year outcomes were compared in 133 patients with early active RA (1987), starting with methotrexate, sulfasalazine and tapered high dose of prednisone (arm 3 of the BehandelStrategieën (Treatment Strategies for Rheumatoid Arthritis) (BeSt) study), targeted at Disease Activity Score (DAS) ≤2.4 (low disease activity), and 175 patients with early RA, starting methotrexate and tapered high dose of prednisone, targeted at DAS <1.6 (selected from IMPROVED study who would have fulfilled inclusion criteria of the BeSt study). Association of treatment target with outcomes DAS <1.6, Boolean remission at year 1 and drug-free DAS remission (DFR) at year 5 were analysed by logistic regression analysis.

Results

At baseline, DAS <1.6 steered patients had a milder disease than DAS ≤2.4 steered patients (mean DAS 4.1±SD 0.7vs4.4±0.9, p=0.012) and less radiological damage. DAS decrease, functional ability and radiological damage progression over time were similar in both patient groups. DAS ≤2.4 was achieved in similar percentages in both patient groups, but more DAS <1.6 steered patients achieved DAS <1.6 and DFR. DAS <1.6 steered treatment was associated with achieving DAS <1.6 (OR 3.04 (95% CI 1.64 to 5.62)) and Boolean remission (3.03 (1.45 to 6.33)) at year 1 and DFR at year 5 (3.77 (1.51 to 9.43)).

Conclusions

In patients with early active RA who start with comparable disease-modifying antirheumatic drug+prednisone combination therapy, subsequent DAS <1.6 steered treatment is associated with similar clinical and radiological outcomes over time as DAS ≤2.4 steered treatment; however, in the DAS <1.6 steered group, more patients achieved remission and drug-free remission.