Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo report long-term safety from the completed extension trial of baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsTreatment-emergent adverse events are summarised from an integrated database (9 phase III/II/Ib and 1 long-term extension) of patients who received any baricitinib dose (All-bari-RA). Standardised incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC)) and standardised mortality ratio (SMR) were estimated. Additional analysis was done in a subset of patients who had ever taken 2 mg or 4 mg baricitinib.Results3770 patients received baricitinib (14 744 patient-years of exposure (PYE)). All-bari-RA incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years at risk were 2.6, 3.0 and 0.5 for serious infections, herpes zoster and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), respectively. In patients aged ≥50 with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, the IR for MACE was 0.77 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.04). The IR for malignancy (excluding NMSC) during the first 48 weeks was 0.6 and remained stable thereafter (IR 1.0). The SIR for malignancies excluding NMSC was 1.07 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.26) and the SMR was 0.74 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). All-bari-RA IRs for deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE), DVT and PE were 0.5 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), 0.4 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.35), respectively. No clear dose differences were noted for exposure-adjusted IRs (per 100 PYE) for deaths, serious infections, DVT/PE and MACE.ConclusionsIn this integrated analysis including long-term data of baricitinib from 3770 patients (median 4.6 years, up to 9.3 years) with active RA, baricitinib maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses. No new safety signals were identified.Trial registration number NCT01185353, NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01710358, NCT02265705, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359 and NCT01885078.

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying anti rheumatic dugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAn SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention for the management of RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments still without registry data (eg, sarilumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib, upadacitinib), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term extensions (LTEs) were used. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed according to standard procedures.ResultsForty-two observational studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, addressing safety outcomes with bDMARDs and sDMARDs. Nine studies showed no difference in the risk of serious infections across bDMARDs and two studies (high RoB) showed an increased risk with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 3.1–3.9). The risk of Herpes zoster infection was similar across bDMARDs, but one study showed an increased risk with tofacitinib compared with abatacept (adjusted HR (aHR) 2.0). Five studies showed no increased risk of cancer for bDMARDs compared with csDMARDs. An increased risk of lower intestinal perforation was found for tocilizumab compared with csDMARDs (aHR 4.5) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (aHR 2.6–4.0). Sixty manuscripts reported safety data from RCTs/LTEs. Overall, no unexpected safety outcomes were found, except for the possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with JAK inhibitors.ConclusionData obtained by this SLR confirm the known safety profile of bDMARDs. The risk of VTE in RA, especially in patients on JAK inhibitors, needs further evaluation.

ObjectivesSince the 2007 recommendations for the management of early arthritis have been presented, considerable research has been published in the field of early arthritis, mandating an update of the 2007 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of early arthritis.MethodsIn accordance with the 2014 EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, the expert committee pursued an approach that was based on evidence in the literature and on expert opinion. The committee involved 20 rheumatologists, 2 patients and 1 healthcare professional representing 12 European countries. The group defined the focus of the expert committee and target population, formulated a definition of ‘management’ and selected the research questions. A systematic literature research (SLR) was performed by two fellows with the help of a skilled librarian. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the SLR. For each recommendation, the categories of evidence were identified, the strength of recommendations was derived and the level of agreement was determined through a voting process.ResultsThe updated recommendations comprise 3 overarching principles and 12 recommendations for managing early arthritis. The selected statements involve the recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognostication, treatment (information, education, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions), monitoring and strategy. Eighteen items were identified as relevant for future research.ConclusionsThese recommendations provide rheumatologists, general practitioners, healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders with an updated EULAR consensus on the entire management of early arthritis.

ObjectivesTo inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsA systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.Results234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.ConclusionThis SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR’s RA management recommendation.

Background As long-term treatment with antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs becomes accepted practice, the risk assessment requires an understanding of anti-TNF long-term safety. Registry safety data in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are available, but these patients may not be monitored as closely as patients in a clinical trial. Cross-indication safety reviews of available anti-TNF agents are limited. Objective To analyse the long-term safety of adalimumab treatment. Methods This analysis included 23 458 patients exposed to adalimumab in 71 global clinical trials in RA, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis (Ps) and Crohn's disease (CD). Events per 100 patient-years were calculated using events reported after the first dose through 70 days after the last dose. Standardised incidence rates for malignancies were calculated using a National Cancer Institute database. Standardised death rates were calculated using WHO data. Results The most frequently reported serious adverse events across indications were infections with greatest incidence in RA and CD trials. Overall malignancy rates for adalimumab-treated patients were as expected for the general population; the incidence of lymphoma was increased in patients with RA, but within the range expected in RA without anti-TNF therapy; non-melanoma skin cancer incidence was raised in RA, Ps and CD. In all indications, death rates were lower than, or equivalent to, those expected in the general population. Conclusions Analysis of adverse events of interest through nearly 12 years of adalimumab exposure in clinical trials across indications demonstrated individual differences in rates by disease populations, no new safety signals and a safety profile consistent with known information about the anti-TNF class.

Objective Ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended in the diagnostic process of rheumatoid arthritis. Research on its comparability in early disease phases is scarce. Therefore, we compared synovitis and tenosynovitis detected by US and MRI on joint/tendon level. Methods Eight hundred forty joints and 700 tendons of 70 consecutive patients, presenting with inflammatory arthritis or clinically suspect arthralgia, underwent US and MRI of MCP (2–5), wrist and MTP (1–5) joints at the same day. Greyscale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) synovitis were scored according to the modified Szkudlarek method (combining synovial effusion and hypertrophy) and the recently published EULAR-OMERACT method (synovial hypertrophy regardless of the presence of effusion) on static images. US-detected tenosynovitis was scored according to the OMERACT. MRI scans were scored according to the RAMRIS. Test characteristics were calculated on joint/tendon level with MRI as reference. Cut-off for US scores were ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 and for MRI ≥ 1. Results Compared to MRI, GS synovitis according to EULAR-OMERACT (cut-off ≥ 1) had a sensitivity ranging from 29 to 75% for the different joint locations; specificity ranged from 80 to 98%. For the modified Szkudlarek method, the sensitivity was 68–91% and specificity 52–71%. PD synovitis had a sensitivity of 30–54% and specificity 97–99% compared to MRI. The sensitivity to detect GS tenosynovitis was 50–78% and the specificity 80–94%. For PD tenosynovitis, the sensitivity was 19–58% and specificity 98–100%. Conclusion Current data showed that US is less sensitive than MRI in the early detection of synovitis and tenosynovitis, but resulted in only few non-specific findings. The higher sensitivity of MRI is at the expense of less accessibility and higher costs.

New treatment strategies have substantially changed the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Many patients can achieve remission if the disease is recognised early and is treated promptly and continuously; however, some individuals do not respond adequately to treatment. Rapid diagnosis and a treat-to-target approach with tight monitoring and control, can increase the likelihood of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In this Series paper, we describe new insights into the management of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted therapy approaches using classic and novel medications, and outline the potential effects of precision medicine in this challenging disease. Articles are included that investigate the treat-to-target approach, which includes adding or de-escalating treatment. Rheumatoid arthritis treatment is impeded by delayed diagnosis, problematic access to specialists, and difficulties adhering to treat-to-target principles. Clinical management goals in rheumatoid arthritis include enabling rapid access to optimum diagnosis and care and the well informed use of multiple treatments approved for this disease.

ObjectivesTo assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA.MethodsSystematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool.ResultsTwenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)—without differences across bDMARDs—a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5).ConclusionsThese findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA.

ObjectivesTo update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained.ResultsThe RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or ‘spacing’ was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B).ConclusionsThis systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a heterogeneous chronic disease, and no therapeutic agent has been identified which is universally and persistently effective in all patients. We investigated the effectiveness of tofacitinib (CP-690,550), a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. We did a 6-month, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study at 82 centres in 13 countries, including North America, Europe, and Latin America. 399 patients aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1:1 ratio with an automated internet or telephone system to receive twice a day treatment with: tofacitinib 5 mg (n=133); tofacitinib 10 mg (n=134); or placebo (n=132), all with methotrexate. At month 3, patients given placebo advanced to either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (n=66) or 10 mg twice a day (n=66). Primary endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rate, mean change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and rates of disease activity score (DAS)28-4(ESR) less than 2·6 (referred to as DAS28<2·6), all at month 3. The full analysis set for the primary analysis included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00960440. At month 3, ACR20 response rates were 41·7% (55 of 132 [95% CI vs placebo 6·06–28·41]; p=0·0024) for tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day and 48·1% (64 of 133; [12·45–34·92]; p<0·0001) for tofacitinib 10 mg twice a day versus 24·4% (32 of 131) for placebo. Improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI were −0·43 ([−0·36 to −0·15]; p<0·0001) for 5 mg twice a day and −0·46 ([−0·38 to −0·17]; p<0·0001) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus −0·18 for placebo; DAS28<2·6 rates were 6·7% (eight of 119; [0–10·10]; p=0·0496) for 5 mg twice a day tofacitinib and 8·8% (11 of 125 [1·66–12·60]; p=0·0105) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus 1·7% (two of 120) for placebo. Safety was consistent with phase 2 and 3 studies. The most common adverse events in months 0–3 were diarrhoea (13 of 267; 4·9%), nasopharyngitis (11 of 267; 4·1%), headache (11 of 267; 4·1%), and urinary tract infection (eight of 267; 3·0%) across tofacitinib groups, and nausea (nine of 132; 6·8%) in the placebo group. In this treatment-refractory population, tofacitinib with methotrexate had rapid and clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and physical function over 6 months with manageable safety. Tofacitinib could provide an effective treatment option in patients with an inadequate response to TNFi. Pfizer.