Explore the vast range of titles available.

Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014–000555–93). Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9–45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04–0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04–0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study. 6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase. Innovative Medicine Initiative.

ObjectivesTo evaluate malignancies and their associations with baseline risk factors and cardiovascular risk scores with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsIn an open-label, randomised controlled trial (ORAL Surveillance; NCT02092467), 4362 patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 (N=1455) or 10 mg two times per day (N=1456) or TNFi (N=1451). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and HRs were calculated for adjudicated malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC and subtypes. Post hoc analyses for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC included risk factors identified via simple/multivariable Cox models and IRs/HRs categorised by baseline risk factors, history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HxASCVD) and cardiovascular risk scores.ResultsIRs for malignancies excluding NMSC and NMSC were higher with tofacitinib (combined and individual doses) versus TNFi. Risk of lung cancer (most common subtype with tofacitinib) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi. In the overall study population, the risk of malignancies excluding NMSC was similar between both tofacitinib doses and TNFi until month 18 and diverged from month 18 onwards (HR (95% CIs) for combined tofacitinib doses: 0.93 (0.53 to 1.62) from baseline to month 18 vs 1.93 (1.22 to 3.06) from month 18 onwards, interaction p=0.0469). Cox analyses identified baseline risk factors across treatment groups for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC; interaction analyses generally did not show statistical evidence of interaction between treatment groups and risk factors. HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk scores were associated with higher malignancy IRs across treatments.ConclusionsRisk of malignancies was increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi, and incidence was highest in patients with HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk. This may be due to shared risk factors for cardiovascular risk and cancer.Trial registration numbers NCT02092467, NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661

Although targeted biological treatments have transformed the outlook for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 40% of patients show poor clinical response, which is mechanistically still unexplained. Because more than 50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have low or absent CD20 B cells—the target for rituximab—in the main disease tissue (joint synovium), we hypothesised that, in these patients, the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab would be more effective. The aim of this trial was to compare the effect of tocilizumab with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) stratified for synovial B-cell status. This study was a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 randomised controlled trial (rituximab vs tocilizumab in anti-TNF inadequate responder patients with rheumatoid arthritis; R4RA) done in 19 centres across five European countries (the UK, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain). Patients aged 18 years or older who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and were eligible for treatment with rituximab therapy according to UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines were eligible for inclusion in the trial. To inform balanced stratification, following a baseline synovial biopsy, patients were classified histologically as B-cell poor or rich. Patients were then randomly assigned (1:1) centrally in block sizes of six and four to receive two 1000 mg rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (rituximab group) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (tocilizumab group). To enhance the accuracy of the stratification of B-cell poor and B-cell rich patients, baseline synovial biopsies from all participants were subjected to RNA sequencing and reclassified by B-cell molecular signature. The study was powered to test the superiority of tocilizumab over rituximab in the B-cell poor population at 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as a 50% improvement in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%) from baseline. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN database, ISRCTN97443826, and EudraCT, 2012-002535-28. Between Feb 28, 2013, and Jan 17, 2019, 164 patients were classified histologically and were randomly assigned to the rituximab group (83 [51%]) or the tocilizumab group (81 [49%]). In patients histologically classified as B-cell poor, there was no statistically significant difference in CDAI50% between the rituximab group (17 [45%] of 38 patients) and the tocilizumab group (23 [56%] of 41 patients; difference 11% [95% CI −11 to 33], p=0·31). However, in the synovial biopsies classified as B-cell poor with RNA sequencing the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for CDAI50% (rituximab group 12 [36%] of 33 patients vs tocilizumab group 20 [63%] of 32 patients; difference 26% [2 to 50], p=0·035). Occurrence of adverse events (rituximab group 76 [70%] of 108 patients vs tocilizumab group 94 [80%] of 117 patients; difference 10% [–1 to 21) and serious adverse events (rituximab group 8 [7%] of 108 vs tocilizumab group 12 [10%] of 117; difference 3% [–5 to 10]) were not significantly different between treatment groups. The results suggest that RNA sequencing-based stratification of rheumatoid arthritis synovial tissue showed stronger associations with clinical responses compared with histopathological classification. Additionally, for patients with low or absent B-cell lineage expression signature in synovial tissue tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab. Replication of the results and validation of the RNA sequencing-based classification in independent cohorts is required before making treatment recommendations for clinical practice. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme from the UK National Institute for Health Research.

ObjectivesThis integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsTreatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks).Results3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups.ConclusionIn the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab.Trial registration numbersSELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847.

ObjectiveIn 2011, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR endorsed provisional criteria for remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both Boolean-based and index-based. Based on recent studies indicating that a higher threshold for the patient global assessment (PtGA) may improve agreement between the two sets of criteria, our goals were to externally validate a revision of the Boolean remission criteria using a higher PtGA threshold and to validate the provisionally endorsed index-based criteria.MethodsWe used data from four randomised trials comparing biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to methotrexate or placebo. We tested the higher proposed PtGA threshold of 2 cm (Boolean2.0) (range 0–10 cm) compared with the original threshold of 1 cm (Boolean1.0). We analysed agreement between the Boolean-based and index-based criteria (Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)) for remission and examined how well each remission definition predicted later good physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score≤0.5) and radiographic non-progression.ResultsData from 2048 trial participants, 1101 with early RA and 947 with established RA, were included. The proportion of patients with disease in remission at 6 months after treatment initiation increased when using Boolean2.0 compared with Boolean1.0, from 14.8% to 20.6% in early RA and 4.2% to 6.0% in established RA. Agreement between Boolean2.0 and the SDAI or CDAI remission criteria was better than for Boolean1.0, particularly in early disease. Boolean2.0, SDAI, and CDAI remission criteria had similar positive likelihood ratios (LRs) to predict radiographic nonprogression and a HAQ score of ≤0.5 (positive LR 3.8–4.3). The omission of PtGA (BooleanX) worsened the prediction of good functional outcomes.ConclusionUsing the Boolean 2.0 criteria classifies, more patients as achieving remission and increases the agreement with index-based remission criteria without jeopardising predictive value for radiographic or functional outcomes. This revised Boolean definition and the previously provisionally endorsed index-based criteria were endorsed by ACR and EULAR.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive highly targeted biologic therapies without previous knowledge of target expression levels in the diseased tissue. Approximately 40% of patients do not respond to individual biologic therapies and 5–20% are refractory to all. In a biopsy-based, precision-medicine, randomized clinical trial in RA (R4RA; n  = 164), patients with low/absent synovial B cell molecular signature had a lower response to rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) compared with that to tocilizumab (anti-IL6R monoclonal antibody) although the exact mechanisms of response/nonresponse remain to be established. Here, in-depth histological/molecular analyses of R4RA synovial biopsies identify humoral immune response gene signatures associated with response to rituximab and tocilizumab, and a stromal/fibroblast signature in patients refractory to all medications. Post-treatment changes in synovial gene expression and cell infiltration highlighted divergent effects of rituximab and tocilizumab relating to differing response/nonresponse mechanisms. Using ten-by-tenfold nested cross-validation, we developed machine learning algorithms predictive of response to rituximab (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.74), tocilizumab (AUC = 0.68) and, notably, multidrug resistance (AUC = 0.69). This study supports the notion that disease endotypes, driven by diverse molecular pathology pathways in the diseased tissue, determine diverse clinical and treatment–response phenotypes. It also highlights the importance of integration of molecular pathology signatures into clinical algorithms to optimize the future use of existing medications and inform the development of new drugs for refractory patients. Biomarker analysis of the phase 4 R4RA trial identifies pretreatment synovial biopsy features selectively associated with response to rituximab or tocilizumab, and leads to the development of models that might predict treatment benefit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

While biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have transformed outcomes of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a proportion of patients are refractory to multiple bDMARDs. Definitions of refractory RA thus far have been arbitrary, and outcome data and impact of such cohorts remain limited. Extrapolation from randomised controlled trial and some real-life data suggest approximately 20% progress onto a third bDMARD with a more modest proportion failing additional bDMARDs. This viewpoint discusses an opinion of refractory RA disease and proposes key principles to accurately identify refractory cohorts. These include demonstrating presence of persistent inflammation despite multiple therapies and acknowledging development of antidrug antibody. Potential basis of refractory disease is summarised, and suggestions for an initial approach in the future evaluation of refractory disease are offered. Specific investigation of refractory RA disease is necessary to inform the clinical need and provide a basis for robust investigation of underlying mechanisms.

The inflammatory contribution to type 2 diabetes (T2D) has suggested new therapeutic targets using biologic drugs designed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). On this basis, we aimed at investigating whether interleukin-1 (IL-1) inhibition with anakinra, a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist, could improve both glycaemic and inflammatory parameters in participants with RA and T2D compared with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (TNFis). This study, designed as a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, enrolled participants, followed up for 6 months, with RA and T2D in 12 Italian rheumatologic units between 2013 and 2016. Participants were randomised to anakinra or to a TNFi (i.e., adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, infliximab, or golimumab), and the primary end point was the change in percentage of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c%) (EudraCT: 2012-005370-62 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02236481). In total, 41 participants with RA and T2D were randomised, and 39 eligible participants were treated (age 62.72 ± 9.97 years, 74.4% female sex). The majority of participants had seropositive RA disease (rheumatoid factor and/or anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody [ACPA] 70.2%) with active disease (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28]: 5.54 ± 1.03; C-reactive protein 11.84 ± 9.67 mg/L, respectively). All participants had T2D (HbA1c%: 7.77 ± 0.70, fasting plasma glucose: 139.13 ± 42.17 mg). When all the enrolled participants reached 6 months of follow-up, the important crude difference in the main end point, confirmed by an unplanned ad interim analysis showing the significant effects of anakinra, which were not observed in the other group, led to the study being stopped for early benefit. Participants in the anakinra group had a significant reduction of HbA1c%, in an unadjusted linear mixed model, after 3 months (β: -0.85, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.42) and 6 months (β: -1.05, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.59). Similar results were observed adjusting the model for relevant RA and T2D clinical confounders (male sex, age, ACPA positivity, use of corticosteroids, RA duration, T2D duration, use of oral antidiabetic drug, body mass index [BMI]) after 3 months (β: -1.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.55) and 6 months (β: -1.24, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.72). Participants in the TNFi group had a nonsignificant slight decrease of HbA1c%. Assuming the success threshold to be HbA1c% ≤ 7, we considered an absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 0.42 (experimental event rate = 0.54, control event rate = 0.12); thus, we estimated, rounding up, a number needed to treat (NNT) = 3. Concerning RA, a progressive reduction of disease activity was observed in both groups. No severe adverse events, hypoglycaemic episodes, or deaths were observed. Urticarial lesions at the injection site led to discontinuation in 4 (18%) anakinra-treated participants. Additionally, we observed nonsevere infections, including influenza, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, and diarrhoea in both groups. Our study has some limitations, including open-label design and previously unplanned ad interim analysis, small size, lack of some laboratory evaluations, and ongoing use of other drugs. In this study, we observed an apparent benefit of IL-1 inhibition in participants with RA and T2D, reaching the therapeutic targets of both diseases. Our results suggest the concept that IL-1 inhibition may be considered a targeted treatment for RA and T2D. The trial is registered with EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT Number: 2012-005370-62 and with ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT02236481.

Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013–003413–18). Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28–78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38–161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. Bristol Myers Squibb.

In this randomized noninferiority trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular events and cancers occurred more frequently with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor, and noninferiority of tofacitinib with respect to these end points was not established.