Explore the vast range of titles available.

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

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.

Objective The objective was to determine if dose reduction is non-inferior to full-dose TNFi to maintain low disease activity (LDA) in patients already in remission with TNFi, in axial spondyloarthritis. Methods Randomized, parallel, non-inferiority, open-label multicentre clinical trial. Patients were eligible if they had axial spondyloarthritis and had been in clinical remission for ≥ 6 months with any available TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) at the dose recommended by product labelling. Patients were randomized by automated central allocation to continue the same TNFi dose schedule, or to reduce the dose by roughly half according to the protocol. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with LDA after 1 year. Serious adverse reactions or infections were recorded. Results The trial stopped due to end of the funding period, after 126 patients were randomized; 113 patients (84.1% male, mean age (SD) 45.6 (13.0) years) were included in the main per-protocol subset. Non-inferiority was concluded for LDA at 1 year (47/55 (83.8%) patients in the full-dose and 48/58 (81.3%) patients in the reduced-dose arm, adjusted difference (95% CI) − 2.5% (− 16.6% to 11.7%)). Serious adverse reactions or infections were reported in 7/62 patients (11.3%) assigned to full dose and 2/61 patients (3.3%) assigned to reduced dose ( p value = 0.164). Conclusion In patients with ankylosing spondylitis in clinical remission for at least 6 months, dose reduction is non-inferior to full TNF inhibitor doses to maintain LDA after 1 year. Serious adverse events may be less frequent with reduced doses. Trial registration EU Clinical Trials Registry, EudraCT 2011–005871-18 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01604629 .

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of two tapering strategies after achieving controlled disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), during 1 year of follow-up.MethodsIn this multicentre single-blinded (research nurses) randomised controlled trial, patients with RA were included who achieved controlled disease, defined as a Disease Activity Score (DAS) ≤ 2.4 and a Swollen Joint Count (SJC) ≤ 1, treated with both a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) and a TNF inhibitor. Eligible patients were randomised into gradual tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors. Medication was tapered if the RA was still under control, by cutting the dosage into half, a quarter and thereafter it was stopped. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with a disease flare, defined as DAS > 2.4 and/or SJC > 1. Secondary outcomes were DAS, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ5D) and functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index [HAQ-DI]) after 1 year and over time.ResultsA total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to tapering csDMARDs (n = 94) or tapering anti-TNF (n = 95). The cumulative flare rates in the csDMARD and anti-TNF tapering group were, respectively, 33 % (95% CI,24% to 43 %) and 43 % (95% CI, 33% to 53 % (p = 0.17). Mean DAS, HAQ-DI and EQ-5D did not differ between tapering groups after 1 year and over time.ConclusionUp to 9 months, flare rates of tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors were similar. After 1 year, a non-significant difference was found of 10 % favouring csDMARD tapering. Tapering TNF inhibitors was, therefore, not superior to tapering csDMARDs. From a societal perspective, it would be sensible to taper the TNF inhibitor first, because of possible cost reductions and less long-term side effects.Trial registration numberNTR2754

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ), a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) cytokine, versus placebo (PBO) in patients with prior inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IRs).MethodsIn this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the patients were randomised in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or PBO plus methotrexate. At week 16, the patients on PBO were randomised to receive either OKZ regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP))<3.2 at week 12 was the major secondary efficacy endpoint. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed.ResultsIn 368 patients randomised, ACR20 response rates were 60.9% in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q4w and 40.6% in PBO (p<0.01 for both comparisons). Achievement of DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 was significantly different, favouring the OKZ arms. Improvements in efficacy and patient-reported outcomes were maintained throughout 24 weeks and were noted after week 16 in patients who switched from PBO.Dose-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events were 7% in OKZ q2w, 3.2% in OKZ q4w and none in the PBO group.ConclusionsDirect inhibition of IL-6 with OKZ resulted in significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis compared with PBO in TNF-IR patients with a similar safety profile as observed for monoclonal antibodies to the IL-6 receptor.Trial registration number NCT02760433.

To evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib compared to TNF-α Inhibitors and conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) in patients with RA. Our study included 334 RA patients classified into 3 groups: the first receiving baricitinib, the second receiving TNF-α Inhibitors, and the third receiving cDMARDs. Patients were evaluated at baseline, week 12, and week 24 using TJC, SJC, VAS, DAS28, CDAI, and HAQ-DI. Larsen score was measured at baseline and 24 weeks. The response to therapy was assessed at weeks 12 and 24 using ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 response criteria. Emerging treatment side effects were monitored. Patients receiving baricitinib showed significant improvement regarding all outcome measures at weeks 12 and 24. In addition, baricitinib was comparable to TNF Inhibitors in all outcome measures except the ACR 70 at week 12, which was higher in the baricitinib group. Furthermore, baricitinib group showed significantly better outcome measures and response to therapy in comparison to cDMARDs group. The most common side effects in the baricitinib group were infection, GIT, and CVS complications. The most common side effects in the TNF inhibitors group were infection and skin complications. The cDMARDs had the least side effects, mostly GIT complications. Baricitinib is an effective drug for treating RA refractory to cDMARDs, improving disease activity measures and functional status and reducing the progression of structural joint damage. It has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to TNF Inhibitors. Multicenter studies are recommended to support our results. Key Points• Baricitinib is an effective therapeutic choice for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to cDMARDs.• Patients treated with baricitinib showed improvement in all outcome measures and functional status.• Bricitinib delayed the progression of radiographic joint damage more effectively than cDMARDs.• The efficacy and safety of baricitinib for treating rheumatoid arthritis is comparable to that of TNF inhibitors.

ObjectivesTumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but are associated with a small (0.6%) increase in serious infection risk, patient burden due to need for self-injection and high costs. Treat-to-target (T2T) tapering might ameliorate these drawbacks, but high-quality evidence on T2T tapering strategies is lacking in PsA and axSpA.MethodsWe performed a pragmatic open-label, monocentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) trial on T2T tapering of TNFi. Patients with PsA and axSpA using a TNFi with ≥6 months stable low disease activity (LDA) were included. Patients were randomised 2:1 to disease activity-guided T2T with or without tapering until withdrawal and followed-up to 12 months. Primary endpoint was the difference in proportion of patients having LDA at 12 months between groups, compared with a prespecified NI margin of 20%, estimated using a Bayesian prior.Results122 patients (64 PsA and 58 axSpA) were randomised to a T2T strategy with (N=81) or without tapering (N=41). The proportion of patients in LDA at 12 months was 69% for the tapering and 73% for the no-tapering group: adjusted difference 5% (Bayesian 95% credible interval: −10% to 19%) which confirms NI considering the NI margin of 20%. The mean percentage of daily defined dose was 53% for the tapering and 91% for the no-tapering group at month 12.ConclusionsA T2T TNFi strategy with tapering attempt is non-inferior to a T2T strategy without tapering with regard to the proportion of patients still in LDA at 12 months, and results in a substantial reduction of TNFi use.Trial registration numberNL 6771.

ObjectivesMany patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year.MethodsThis randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population.ResultsBetween June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group.ConclusionIn patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment.Trial registration numbersEudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308.

ObjectivesThe study aimed to evaluate the effect of adding a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), celecoxib (CEL), to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), golimumab (GOL), compared with TNFi monotherapy on radiographic spinal progression in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) over 2 years.MethodsR-axSpA patients, having risk factors for radiographic progression (high disease activity plus C reactive protein >5 mg/L and/or ≥1 syndesmophyte(s)), underwent a 12-week run-in phase with GOL 50 mg every 4 weeks. In the core phase (96 weeks), only patients with a good clinical response at week 12 were randomised (1:1) to GOL+CEL 200 mg two times per day (combination therapy) or GOL monotherapy. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression assessed by modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) change at week 108 in the intent-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 128 patients were enrolled in the run-in phase; and 109 patients were randomised at week 12 to monotherapy (n=55) or combination therapy (n=54). At week 108, 97 (52 vs 45) patients completed the study. The change in mSASSS at week 108 was 1.7 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.6) in the monotherapy vs 1.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.8) in the combination therapy groups (p=0.79). New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% of patients in the monotherapy vs 11% of patients in the combination therapy groups (p=0.12). During the study, no significant differences in adverse events and serious adverse events were observed between the groups.ConclusionsCombination therapy with GOL+CEL did not demonstrate statistically significant superiority over GOL monotherapy in retarding radiographic spinal progression over 2 years in r-axSpA.

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of golimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) dactylitis.MethodsMulticentre, investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design phase 3b trial in 11 Portuguese rheumatology centres. Patients with PsA along with active dactylitis and naive to MTX and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were randomly assigned to golimumab or placebo, both in combination with MTX. The primary endpoint was Dactylitis Severity Score (DSS) change from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints included DSS and Leeds Dactylitis Index (LDI) response, and changes from baseline in the LDI and MRI dactylitis score. Analysis was by intention-to-treat for the primary endpoint.ResultsTwenty-one patients received golimumab plus MTX and 23 MTX monotherapy for 24 weeks. One patient from each arm discontinued. Patient inclusion was halted at 50% planned recruitment due to a favourable interim analysis. Median baseline DSS was 6 in both arms. By week 24, patients treated with golimumab plus MTX exhibited significantly greater improvements in DSS relative to MTX monotherapy (median change of 5 vs 2 points, respectively; p=0.026). In the golimumab plus MTX arm, significantly higher proportions of patients achieved at least 50% or 70% improvement in DSS and 20%, 50% or 70% improvement in LDI in comparison to MTX monotherapy.ConclusionsThe combination of golimumab and MTX as first-line bDMARD therapy is superior to MTX monotherapy for the treatment of PsA dactylitis.Trial registration number NCT02065713