Explore the vast range of titles available.

The treat-to-target (T2T) concept has improved outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis. This therapeutic strategy involves choosing a well-defined, relevant target, taking therapeutic steps, evaluating whether the target has been achieved, and taking action if it has not. The T2T principle has been embraced by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experts, but measurable and achievable outcomes, and therapeutic options, are needed to make this approach possible in practice. Considerable evidence has been generated regarding meaningful ‘state’ outcomes for SLE. Low disease activity has been defined and studied, and the most aspirational goal, remission, has been defined by the Definition of Remission in SLE task force. By contrast, current therapeutic options in SLE are limited, and more effective and safer therapies are urgently needed. Fortunately, clinical trial activity in SLE has been unprecedented, and encouraging results have been seen for novel therapies, including biologic and small-molecule agents. Thus, with the expected advent of such treatments, it is likely that sufficiently diverse therapies for SLE will be available in the foreseeable future, allowing the routine implementation of T2T approaches in the care of patients with SLE.This Review discusses progress in identifying potential outcome measures and developing treatment options to achieve a treat-to-target approach in systemic lupus erythematosus, as well as the research advances that are needed to realize these objectives.

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib was associated with greater reductions in signs and symptoms than methotrexate. Herpes zoster infections and increases in creatinine and in LDL and HDL cholesterol levels were more common with tofacitinib. Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation and by joint destruction that leads to substantial disability. The predominant first-line treatment is methotrexate, a nonbiologic agent that is associated with acceptable clinical and functional improvements. Although methotrexate prevents progressive joint damage in some patients, 1 – 3 concerns have been raised regarding its side effects and safety. 4 – 8 In one study, discontinuation of methotrexate was reported after 2 years of treatment in one third of the patients and after 5 years of treatment in more than half the patients. 9 In combination with methotrexate, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including tumor . . .

In this trial of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were on stable doses of methotrexate, tofacitinib, a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, was more effective than placebo. Adverse events included infections, reduced neutrophil counts, and increased LDL cholesterol. Rheumatoid arthritis is a common autoimmune disease of the musculoskeletal system that is associated with considerable morbidity and diminished quality of life. 1 – 3 Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is based on conventional or biologic (or both) disease-modifying drugs, of which methotrexate is the most widely used. 4 For patients who have an inadequate response to methotrexate, anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic agents have proved to be effective as second-line treatment. 5 – 7 Conventional disease-modifying drugs are small, orally active molecules, whereas biologic products are, by definition, large proteins that are available only as parenteral agents. The development of a novel oral antirheumatic agent . . .

Roughly a third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological treatments receive them as monotherapy. Tocilizumab—an inhibitor of interleukin 6 receptor signalling—has been studied as monotherapy in several clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab monotherapy compared with adalimumab monotherapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. We did this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 4 superiority study in 76 centres in 15 countries in North and South America, Australasia, and Europe. We enrolled patients who were aged at least 18 years, had severe rheumatoid arthritis for 6 months or more, and were intolerant to methotrexate or were inappropriate for continued methotrexate treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of four) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg per kg bodyweight intravenously every 4 weeks plus placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks or adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks plus placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. Investigators, patients, and sponsor personnel were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was change in disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28) from baseline to week 24. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01119859. We screened 452 patients and enrolled 326 patients. The intention-to-treat population contained 325 patients (163 assigned to tocilizumab, 162 assigned to adalimumab). Week 24 mean change from baseline in DAS28 was significantly greater in the tocilizumab group (–3·3) than in the adalimumab group (−1·8) patients (difference −1·5, 95% CI −1·8 to −1·1; p<0·0001). 16 of 162 (10%) patients in the adalimumab group versus 19 of 162 (12%) in the tocilizumab group had serious adverse events. More patients in the tocilizumab group than in the adalimumab group had increased LDL-cholesterol, increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations, and reduced platelet and neutrophil counts. Tocilizumab monotherapy was superior to adalimumab monotherapy for reduction of signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients for whom methotrexate was deemed inappropriate. The adverse event profiles of tocilizumab and adalimumab were consistent with previous findings. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Sex differences in the prevalence of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are well described, but the literature is not as clear about sex differences in RA disease course and prognosis . A recent study from a very large cross-sectional international cohort demonstrated slightly worse levels of disease activity and function in female patients with RA, compared with men. These findings are discussed in the context of our evolving knowledge of sex differences in the expression of this prototypic autoimmune disease, both in terms of the actual disease activity level, the effects that the disease has on physical function, and our ability accurately to measure these aspects.

Treat-to-target has been established as a guiding principle for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and encompasses several distinct elements: choosing a target and a method for measuring it; assessing the target at a pre-specified time point; a commitment to change the therapy if the target is not achieved; and shared decision-making. A treat-to-target approach yields superior outcomes to standard care in RA, and the ACR, EULAR and other professional organizations have endorsed treat-to-target as a fundamental therapeutic strategy for RA. Nevertheless, data on the degree to which treat-to-target is employed in the clinic are scarce; it seems that although some elements of treat-to-target are widely used, full implementation remains uncommon. Outstanding knowledge gaps to be addressed include how to select the right target for each patient, how often to assess whether the target has been achieved and the selection of each subsequent therapy in an evidence-based manner.Treat-to-target has been a guiding principle for treatment in rheumatology for almost 10 years. This Perspectives article evaluates how well the idea of treat-to-target has translated into clinical practice.

Biological agents offer good control of rheumatoid arthritis, but the long-term benefits of achieving low disease activity with a biological agent plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone are unclear. The OPTIMA trial assessed different treatment adjustment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis attaining (or not) stable low disease activity with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate monotherapy. This trial was done at 161 sites worldwide. Patients with early (<1 year duration) rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate were randomly allocated (by interactive voice response system, in a 1:1 ratio, block size four) to adalimumab (40 mg every other week) plus methotrexate (initiated at 7·5 mg/week, increased by 2·5 mg every 1–2 weeks to a maximum weekly dose of 20 mg by week 8) or placebo plus methotrexate for 26 weeks (period 1). Patients in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group who completed period 1 and achieved the stable low disease activity target (28-joint disease activity score with C-reactive protein [DAS28]<3·2 at weeks 22 and 26) were randomised to adalimumab-continuation or adalimumab-withdrawal for an additional 52 weeks (period 2). Patients achieving the target with initial methotrexate continued methotrexate-monotherapy. Inadequate responders were offered adalimumab plus methotrexate. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation in period 1. During period 2, treatment reallocation of patients who achieved the target was masked to patients and investigators; patients who did not achieve the target remained masked to original randomisation, but were aware of the subsequent assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite measure of DAS28 of less than 3·2 at week 78 and radiographic non-progression from baseline to week 78, compared between adalimumab-continuation and methotrexate-monotherapy. Adverse events were monitored throughout period 2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00420927. The study was done between Dec 28, 2006, and Aug 3, 2010. 1636 patients were assessed and 1032 were randomised in period 1 (515 to adalimumab plus methotrexate; 517 to placebo plus methotrexate). 466 patients in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group completed period 1; 207 achieved the stable low disease activity target, of whom 105 were rerandomised to adalimumab-continuation. 460 patients in the placebo plus methotrexate group completed period 1; 112 achieved the stable low disease activity target and continued methotrexate-monotherapy. 73 of 105 (70%) patients in the adalimumab-continuation group and 61 of 112 (54%) patients in the methotrexate-monotherapy group achieved the primary endpoint at week 78 (mean difference 15% [95% CI 2–28%], p=0·0225). Patients achieving the stable low disease activity target on adalimumab plus methotrexate who withdrew adalimumab mostly maintained their good responses. Overall, 706 of 926 patients in period 2 had an adverse event, of which 82 were deemed serious; however, distribution of adverse events did not differ between groups. Treatment to a stable low disease activity target resulted in improved clinical, functional, and structural outcomes, with both adalimumab-continuation and methotrexate-monotherapy. However, a higher proportion of patients treated with initial adalimumab plus methotrexate achieved the low disease activity target compared with those initially treated with methotrexate alone. Outcomes were much the same whether adalimumab was continued or withdrawn in patients who initially responded to adalimumab plus methotrexate. AbbVie.

Blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2) is a receptor that is exclusively expressed on plasmacytoid dendritic cells, which are implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus erythematosus. Whether treatment with litifilimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against BDCA2, would be efficacious in reducing disease activity in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus has not been extensively studied. In this phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned adults with histologically confirmed cutaneous lupus erythematosus with or without systemic manifestations in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous litifilimab (at a dose of 50, 150, or 450 mg) or placebo at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12. We used a dose-response model to assess whether there was a response across the four groups on the basis of the primary end point, which was the percent change from baseline to 16 weeks in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index-Activity score (CLASI-A; scores range from 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating more widespread or severe skin involvement). Safety was also assessed. A total of 132 participants were enrolled; 26 were assigned to the 50-mg litifilimab group, 25 to the 150-mg litifilimab group, 48 to the 450-mg litifilimab group, and 33 to the placebo group. Mean CLASI-A scores for the groups at baseline were 15.2, 18.4, 16.5, and 16.5, respectively. The difference from placebo in the change from baseline in CLASI-A score at week 16 was -24.3 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] -43.7 to -4.9) in the 50-mg litifilimab group, -33.4 percentage points (95% CI, -52.7 to -14.1) in the 150-mg group, and -28.0 percentage points (95% CI, -44.6 to -11.4) in the 450-mg group. The least squares mean changes were used in the primary analysis of a best-fitting dose-response model across the three drug-dose levels and placebo, which showed a significant effect. Most of the secondary end points did not support the results of the primary analysis. Litifilimab was associated with three cases each of hypersensitivity and oral herpes infection and one case of herpes zoster infection. One case of herpes zoster meningitis occurred 4 months after the participant received the last dose of litifilimab. In a phase 2 trial involving participants with cutaneous lupus erythematosus, treatment with litifilimab was superior to placebo with regard to a measure of skin disease activity over a period of 16 weeks. Larger and longer trials are needed to determine the effect and safety of litifilimab for the treatment of cutaneous lupus erythematosus. (Funded by Biogen; LILAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02847598.).

ObjectivesIberdomide is a high-affinity cereblon ligand that promotes proteasomal degradation of transcription factors Ikaros (IKZF1) and Aiolos (IKZF3). Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of oral iberdomide were evaluated in a phase 2b study of patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsAdults with autoantibody-positive SLE were randomised to placebo (n=83) or once daily iberdomide 0.15 mg (n=42), 0.3 mg (n=82) or 0.45 mg (n=81). Pharmacodynamic changes in whole blood leucocytes were measured by flow cytometry, regulatory T cells (Tregs) by epigenetic assay, plasma cytokines by ultrasensitive cytokine assay and gene expression by Modular Immune Profiling.ResultsIberdomide exhibited linear pharmacokinetics and dose-dependently modulated leucocytes and cytokines. Compared with placebo at week 24, iberdomide 0.45 mg significantly (p<0.001) reduced B cells, including those expressing CD268 (TNFRSF13C) (−58.3%), and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (−73.9%), and increased Tregs (+104.9%) and interleukin 2 (IL-2) (+144.1%). Clinical efficacy was previously reported in patients with high IKZF3 expression and high type I interferon (IFN) signature at baseline and confirmed here in those with an especially high IFN signature. Iberdomide decreased the type I IFN gene signature only in patients with high expression at baseline (−81.5%; p<0.001) but decreased other gene signatures in all patients.ConclusionIberdomide significantly reduced activity of type I IFN and B cell pathways, and increased IL-2 and Tregs, suggesting a selective rebalancing of immune abnormalities in SLE. Clinical efficacy corresponded to reduction of the type I IFN gene signature.Trial registration number NCT03161483.

Analysis of the Swedish Farmacotherapy (Swefot) trial at 12 months showed that the addition of an anti-tumour-necrosis-factor agent gave an improved clinical outcome compared with the addition of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis. Here we report the 2 year follow-up assessment. In this randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group trial, we enrolled adult patients older than 18 years with rheumatoid arthritis and a symptom duration of less than 1 year from 15 rheumatology units in Sweden between December, 2002 and December, 2006. All patients were started on methotrexate. After 3–4 months, those who failed treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to group A (conventional treatment; additional sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine) or group B (biological treatment; additional infliximab). Randomisation was done with a computer-generated sequence. We analysed clinical outcomes at months 18 and 24 by the response criteria of the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, and radiographs of patients' hands and feet at months 12 and 24 using the Van der Heijde modification of the Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00764725. Of 493 screened individuals, we enrolled 487, of whom 258 were randomly allocated to treatment. The proportion of patients in group B who received a EULAR-defined good response was non-significantly greater than it was in group A at 18 months (49 of 128 [38%] vs 38 of 130 [29%]) and at 24 months (49 of 128 [38%] vs 40 of 130 [31%]; p=0·204). After 24 months, radiological disease progression was greater in patients in group A than it was in those in group B (mean 7·23 [SD 12·72] vs 4·00 [10·0]; p=0·009). We recorded three serious adverse events: an extended generalised illness in group A, an extended febrile episode in group B, and a generalised illness in group B. Additional biological treatment is a valid option for patients who fail initial methotrexate treatment. However, improved clinical outcomes after 12 months and better radiographical results after 24 months should be weighed against the absence of a convincing clinical difference at 24 months and substantially higher costs. Therefore, for many patients who fail initial methotrexate treatment, add-on treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is an appropriate treatment option. Swedish Rheumatism Association, Stockholm County, and Schering-Plough/Merck Sharp and Dohme.