Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Suppression of the immunoinflammatory cascade by targeting interleukin 6 (IL-6) mediated effects constitutes a therapeutic option for chronic inflammatory diseases. Tocilizumab is the only IL-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) licensed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), but also other agents targeting either IL-6 or its receptor are investigated in various indications. Objective To review published evidence on safety and efficacy of IL-6i in inflammatory diseases. Methods We performed systematic literature searches in Medline and Cochrane, screened EULAR and American College of Rheumatology meeting-abstracts, and accessed http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Results Comprehensive evidence supports the efficacy of tocilizumab in RA in DMARD-naïve patients, and after DMARD- and TNFi-failure. Randomised comparisons demonstrate superiority of tocilizumab in JIA, but not ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Other indications are currently investigated. Additional IL-6i show similar efficacy; safety generally appears acceptable. Conclusions IL-6i is effective and safe in RA and JIA, but not in AS. Preliminary results in other indications need substantiation.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in rheumatology practice at the beginning of the anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor) era, and to evaluate the initiation of anti-TNF therapy in a clinical setting where prescription is regulated by the authority’s imposed reimbursement criteria. Methods: Between February 2004 and February 2005, all Belgian rheumatologists in academic and non-academic outpatient settings were invited to register all AS patients who visited their practice. A random sample of these patients was further examined by an in-depth clinical profile. In a follow-up investigation, we recorded whether patients initiated anti-TNF therapy and compared this to their eligibility at baseline evaluation. Results: 89 rheumatologists participated and registered 2141 patients; 1023 patients were clinically evaluated. These 847 fulfilled the New York modified criteria for definite AS and 176 for probable AS. The profile of AS in rheumatology practice is characterised by longstanding and active disease with a high frequency of extra-articular manifestations and metrological and functional impairment. At a median of 2 months after the clinical evaluation, anti-TNF therapy was initiated in 263 of 603 (44%) evaluable patients with definite AS and in 22 of 138 (16%) evaluable patients with probable AS (total 38%). More than 85% of the patients who started anti-TNF therapy had an increased Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index despite previous NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) use. Conclusions: Of a representative cohort of 1023 Belgian AS patients seen in daily rheumatology practice, about 40% commenced anti-TNF therapy. Decision factors to start anti-TNF therapy may include disease activity and severity.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory joint disorders (IJD) have increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with the general population. In 2009, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce recommended screening, identification of CVD risk factors and CVD risk management largely based on expert opinion. In view of substantial new evidence, an update was conducted with the aim of producing CVD risk management recommendations for patients with IJD that now incorporates an increasing evidence base. A multidisciplinary steering committee (representing 13 European countries) comprised 26 members including patient representatives, rheumatologists, cardiologists, internists, epidemiologists, a health professional and fellows. Systematic literature searches were performed and evidence was categorised according to standard guidelines. The evidence was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Three overarching principles were defined. First, there is a higher risk for CVD in patients with RA, and this may also apply to ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Second, the rheumatologist is responsible for CVD risk management in patients with IJD. Third, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids should be in accordance with treatment-specific recommendations from EULAR and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society. Ten recommendations were defined, of which one is new and six were changed compared with the 2009 recommendations. Each designated an appropriate evidence support level. The present update extends on the evidence that CVD risk in the whole spectrum of IJD is increased. This underscores the need for CVD risk management in these patients. These recommendations are defined to provide assistance in CVD risk management in IJD, based on expert opinion and scientific evidence.

This article summarizes the clinical definition of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis, discusses the pathogenesis of these conditions, and reviews approaches to management. Chronic back pain is common worldwide and is cared for by a variety of providers, but specific, satisfactory treatment is often lacking. Ankylosing spondylitis, an inflammatory disorder that in its extreme form can lead to the bony fusion of vertebral joints, is an uncommon but well-established cause of chronic back pain. During the past decade, ankylosing spondylitis has come to be considered as a subset of the broader and more prevalent diagnostic entity referred to as axial spondyloarthritis. The estimated prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis in the United States is 0.9 to 1.4% of the adult population, similar to that of . . .

Secukinumab, ixekizumab and brodalumab are monoclonal antibody therapies that inhibit interleukin (IL)-17 activity and are widely used for the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. The promising efficacy results in dermatology and rheumatology prompted the evaluation of these drugs in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but the onset of paradoxical events (disease exacerbation after treatment with a theoretically curative drug) prevented their approval in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). To date, the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying these paradoxical effects are not well defined, and there are no clear guidelines for the management of patients with disease flare or new IBD onset after anti-IL-17 drug therapy. In this review, we summarise the literature on putative mechanisms, the clinical digestive effects after therapy with IL-17 inhibitors and provide guidance for the management of these paradoxical effects in clinical practice.

ObjectivesTo update the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).MethodsFollowing the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews were conducted on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment of axSpA. In a task force meeting, the evidence was presented, discussed, and overarching principles and recommendations were updated, followed by voting.ResultsFive overarching principles and 15 recommendations with a focus on personalised medicine were agreed: eight remained unchanged from the previous recommendations; three with minor edits on nomenclature; two with relevant updates (#9, 12); two newly formulated (#10, 11). The first five recommendations focus on treatment target and monitoring, non-pharmacological management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice pharmacological treatment. Recommendations 6–8 deal with analgesics and discourage long-term glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for pure axial involvement. Recommendation 9 describes the indication of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs, that is, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i)) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs, ie, Janus kinase inhibitors) for patients who have Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score ≥2.1 and failed ≥2 NSAIDs and also have either elevated C reactive protein, MRI inflammation of sacroiliac joints or radiographic sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start a TNFi or IL-17i. Recommendation 10 addresses extramusculoskeletal manifestations with TNF monoclonal antibodies preferred for recurrent uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease, and IL-17i for significant psoriasis. Treatment failure should prompt re-evaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities (#11). If active axSpA is confirmed, switching to another b/tsDMARD is recommended (#12). Tapering, rather than immediate discontinuation of a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (#13). The last recommendations (#14, 15) deal with surgery and spinal fractures.ConclusionsThe 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.

The JAK pathway is a potential therapeutic target in ankylosing spondylitis. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, parallel-group, phase 2/3 study, SELECT-AXIS 1, enrolled adults in 62 sites in 20 countries. Eligible patients had active ankylosing spondylitis, fulfilled modified New York criteria, were previously untreated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and had inadequate response to at least two or intolerance or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using interactive response technology to take oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or oral placebo for the 14-week period 1; only period 1 data are reported here. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome measure of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response at week 14. Analyses were done in the full analysis set of patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03178487. Between Nov 30, 2017, and Oct 15, 2018, 187 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (93 patients) or to placebo (94 patients), and 178 (95%) patients (89 in the upadacitinib group and 89 in the placebo group) completed period 1 on study drug (by the completion date of Jan 21, 2019). Significantly more patients had an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response in the upadacitinib group versus in the placebo group at week 14 (48 [52%] of 93 patients vs 24 [26%] of 94 patients; p=0·0003; treatment difference 26% [95% CI 13–40]). Adverse events were reported in 58 (62%) of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group versus 52 (55%) of 94 in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in the upadacitinib group was increased creatine phosphokinase (eight [9%] of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group vs two [2%] of 94 patients with placebo). No serious infections, herpes zoster, malignancy, venous thromboembolic events, or deaths were reported; one serious adverse event was reported in each group. Upadacitinib 15 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who had an inadequate response or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. These data support the further investigation of upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis. AbbVie.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with an inadequate response (IR) to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).MethodsAdults with active AS who met modified New York criteria and had an IR to one or two bDMARDs (tumour necrosis factor or interleukin-17 inhibitors) were randomised 1:1 to oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) response at week 14. Sequentially tested secondary endpoints included Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity score, Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada MRI spine inflammation score, total back pain, nocturnal back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score. Results are reported from the 14-week double-blind treatment period.ResultsA total of 420 patients with active AS were randomised (upadacitinib 15 mg, n=211; placebo, n=209). Significantly more patients achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40 at week 14 with upadacitinib vs placebo (45% vs 18%; p<0.0001). Statistically significant improvements were observed with upadacitinib vs placebo for all multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints (p<0.0001). Adverse events were reported for 41% of upadacitinib-treated and 37% of placebo-treated patients through week 14. No events of malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism or deaths were reported with upadacitinib.ConclusionUpadacitinib 15 mg was significantly more effective than placebo over 14 weeks of treatment in bDMARD-IR patients with active AS. No new safety risks were identified with upadacitinib.Trial registration number NCT04169373.

Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are recommended for radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, otherwise known as ankylosing spondylitis, when conventional therapies are not effective. We report efficacy and safety data on ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A (IL-17A), in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis who have not previously been treated with bDMARDs. In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority study of ixekizumab, adult patients with inadequate response or intolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, an established diagnosis of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, radiographic sacroiliitis centrally defined by modified New York criteria, and at least one spondyloarthritis feature according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria, were recruited from 84 sites (12 countries) in Europe, Asia, and North America. By use of a computer-generated random sequence, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 80 mg subcutaneous ixekizumab every two (Q2W) or four (Q4W) weeks, 40 mg adalimumab Q2W (active reference group), or placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients achieving an ASAS40 response, a composite measure of clinical improvement in axial spondyloarthritis, at week 16 for both ixekizumab treatment groups versus the placebo group. The adalimumab reference group was included as an in-study active reference for comparison with placebo to provide additional context to interpretation of the ixekizumab study results. Between June 20, 2016, and Aug 22, 2017, 341 patients were randomly assigned to either the placebo group (n=87), adalimumab group (n=90), ixekizumab Q2W (n=83), or ixekizumab Q4W (n=81). At week 16, compared with placebo (16 [18%] of 87), more patients achieved ASAS40 with ixekizumab Q2W (43 [52%] of 83; p<0·0001), ixekizumab Q4W (39 [48%] of 81; p<0·0001), and adalimumab (32 [36%] of 90; p=0·0053). One serious infection occurred in each of the ixekizumab Q2W (1%), ixekizumab Q4W (1%), and adalimumab (1%) groups; none were reported with placebo. One (1%) Candida infection occurred in the adalimumab group and one (1%) patient receiving ixekizumab Q2W was adjudicated as having probable Crohn's disease. No treatment-emergent opportunistic infections, malignancies, or deaths occurred. Each dosing regimen of ixekizumab was superior to placebo for improving radiographic axial spondyloarthritis signs and symptoms in patients not previously treated with bDMARDs; the safety profile was consistent with previous indications of ixekizumab. Eli Lilly and Company

ObjectivesTo analyse the impact of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) on spinal radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis (AS).MethodsPatients with AS in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort with up to 10 years of follow-up and radiographic assessments every 2 years were included. Radiographs were scored by two readers according to the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) with known chronology. The relationship between TNFi use before a 2-year radiographic interval and progression within the interval was investigated using binomial generalised estimating equation models with adjustment for potential confounding and multiple imputation of missing values. Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) was regarded as mediating the effect of TNFi on progression and added to the model in a sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 432 patients with AS contributed to data for 616 radiographic intervals. Radiographic progression was defined as an increase in ≥2 mSASSS units in 2 years. Mean (SD) mSASSS increase was 0.9 (2.6) units in 2 years. Prior use of TNFi reduced the odds of progression by 50% (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88) in the multivariable analysis. While no direct effect of TNFi on progression was present in an analysis including time-varying ASDAS (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.08), the indirect effect, via a reduction in ASDAS, was statistically significant (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97).ConclusionTNFis are associated with a reduction of spinal radiographic progression in patients with AS. This effect seems mediated through the inhibiting effect of TNFi on disease activity.