Efficacy, tolerability and safety of biologic therapy in rheumatoid disease: patient considerations

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease in which chronic inflammation leads to joint destruction and extra-articular complications. Early and effective inhibition of inflammation is critical in order to prevent the progressive joint damage that occurs rapidly after onset of the disease. In the past, treatment for this purpose was limited to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), which were often suboptimal. Within the last decade however, the development of biologic therapies, targeted against cytokines and cells involved in the inflammatory process, has revolutionized the management of RA. Disease remission is now an achievable goal in newly diagnosed patients. Since the advent of the first tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor in 1999, other biologics have proved necessary as individuals respond to varying degrees with different therapies. Several are now available for the treatment of patients with RA that remains active despite DMARD treatment. This article reviews the evidence, over the last decade, of the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies used in this context, and the recent clinical data supporting the use of biologic therapy earlier in the disease process as first-line therapy

Abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

T-cell biology has regained importance in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Despite the significant improvements associated with the introduction of tumor necrosis factor-α blockade, reasonable proportions of failures and suboptimal responses have been reported, necessitating a search for alternative targeted therapies. This has included drug therapy designed to interrupt T-cell activation via the co-stimulation pathway. Abatacept is a recombinant fusion protein that blocks the co-stimulatory signal mediated by the CD28-CD80/86 pathway, which is required for T-cell activation. Several clinical trials have confirmed the safety and efficacy of this drug in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. This review summarizes the clinical data supporting this line of treatment and considers the safety and efficacy data from phase II and III trials

Discordance between the predictors of clinical and imaging remission in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: implications for the use of ultrasound within a treatment to target strategy

Objective: To assess the prevalence, relationship between and predictors of clinical and imaging remission in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), achieved with treat-to-target management in clinical practice. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in patients with new-onset RA. The treatment target was remission by disease activity score (DAS28-CRP<2.6). Twelve month outcomes included DAS28-CRP remission, DAS44-CRP remission, ACR/EULAR Boolean remission (BR) and absent or absent/minimal power Doppler activity (PDA) on ultrasound (US) of 26 joints (total PDA score=0 or ≤1, respectively). Logistic regression was conducted to identify baseline predictors of these outcomes. Results: Of 105 patients with complete 12-month data, the rate of DAS28-CRP remission was 43%, DAS44-CRP remission was 39%, BR was 14%, absent PDA was 40% and absent/minimal PDA was 57%. Amongst patients achieving clinical remission defined by DAS28-CRP, DAS44-CRP or BR, absence of PDA was observed in 42%, 44% and 40%, respectively; absent/minimal PDA was detected in 62%, 66% and 67%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, shorter symptom duration, male gender, fewer tender joints and lower disability were associated with the clinical remission definitions. Lack of osteoarthritis predicted absence of PDA and lower total baseline PDA predicted absent/minimal PDA. Conclusion: DAS28-CRP remission and absence of PDA were observed in almost half of patients, but less than a quarter achieved both. Achievement of BR was rare. The low agreement between any of the clinical and imaging outcomes and differences in their predictors highlight the complex interaction between symptoms and synovitis, with implications for treat-to-target management. Long-term follow-up should determine the most appropriate target

Efficacy and safety of filgotinib in methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis with poor prognostic factors: post hoc analysis of FINCH 3

OBJECTIVE: This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of filgotinib, a Janus-associated kinase 1-preferential inhibitor, in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with multiple poor prognostic factors (PPFs). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase III, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, FINCH 3 study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02886728). Patients received once-daily oral filgotinib 200 or 100 mg plus once-weekly oral MTX ≤20 mg (FIL200 + MTX and FIL100 + MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or oral MTX monotherapy (MTX-mono) for up to 52 weeks. PPFs investigated were seropositivity for rheumatoid factor or anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, high-sensitivity C reactive protein (CRP) ≥4 mg/L, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with CRP (DAS28(CRP)) >5.1, and presence of erosions. Filgotinib efficacy and safety in patients with all four PPFs at baseline were explored versus MTX-mono within this subgroup and compared informally with the overall population. RESULTS: Of 1249 patients in FINCH 3, 510 (40.8%) had all PPFs. Efficacy of FIL200 + MTX among these patients was comparable to the overall population, with higher rates of 20%/50%/70% improvement from baseline by American College of Rheumatology criteria, DAS28(CRP) <2.6, and remission; greater improvement in physical function and pain; and better inhibition of structural damage relative to MTX-mono. FIL100 + MTX and FIL200 were not consistently more efficacious versus MTX-mono. Safety of filgotinib in patients with PPFs was comparable to the overall population; no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: FIL200 + MTX efficacy and safety in patients with multiple PPFs were similar to the overall population

The PREdictor of MAlnutrition in Systemic Sclerosis (PREMASS) Score:A Combined Index to Predict 12 Months Onset of Malnutrition in Systemic Sclerosis

Objective: Malnutrition is a severe complication in Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) and it is associated with significant mortality. Notwithstanding, there is no defined screening or clinical pathway for patients, which is hampering effective management and limiting the opportunity for early intervention. Here we aim to identify a combined index predictive of malnutrition at 12 months using clinical data and specific serum adipokines. Methods: This was an international, multicentre observational study involving 159 SSc patients in two independent discovery (n = 98) and validation (n = 61) cohorts. Besides routine clinical and serum data at baseline and 12 months, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) score and serum concentration of leptin and adiponectin were measured for each participant at baseline. The endpoint of malnutrition was defined according to European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) recommendation. Significant parameters from univariate analysis were tested in logistic regression analysis to identify the predictive index of malnutrition in the derivation cohort. Results: The onset of malnutrition at 12 months correlated with adiponectin, leptin and their ratio (A/L), MUST, clinical subset, disease duration, Scl70 and Forced Vital Capaciy (FVC). Logistic regression analysis defined the formula: −2.13 + (A/L*0.45) + (Scl70*0.28) as the best PREdictor of MAlnutrition in SSc (PREMASS) (AUC = 0.96; 95% CI 0.93, 0.99). PREMASS 62% and negative predictive value (NPV) > 97% for malnutrition at 12 months. Conclusion: PREMASS is a feasible index which has shown very good performance in two independent cohorts for predicting malnutrition at 12 months in SSc. The implementation of PREMASS could aid both in clinical management and clinical trial stratification/enrichment to target malnutrition in SSc

Prevalence of comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis and evaluation of their monitoring: results of an international, cross-sectional study (COMORA)

Background: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of developing comorbid conditions.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of comorbidities and compare their management in RA patients from different countries worldwide.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Methods Study design: international, cross-sectional. Patients: consecutive RA patients. Data collected: demographics, disease characteristics (activity, severity, treatment), comorbidities (cardiovascular, infections, cancer, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, osteoporosis and psychiatric disorders).&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Results: Of 4586 patients recruited in 17 participating countries, 3920 were analysed (age, 56±13 years; disease duration, 10±9 years (mean±SD); female gender, 82%; DAS28 (Disease Activity Score using 28 joints)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 3.7±1.6 (mean±SD); Health Assessment Questionnaire, 1.0±0.7 (mean±SD); past or current methotrexate use, 89%; past or current use of biological agents, 39%. The most frequently associated diseases (past or current) were: depression, 15%; asthma, 6.6%; cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke), 6%; solid malignancies (excluding basal cell carcinoma), 4.5%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3.5%. High intercountry variability was observed for both the prevalence of comorbidities and the proportion of subjects complying with recommendations for preventing and managing comorbidities. The systematic evaluation of comorbidities in this study detected abnormalities in vital signs, such as elevated blood pressure in 11.2%, and identified conditions that manifest as laboratory test abnormalities, such as hyperglycaemia in 3.3% and hyperlipidaemia in 8.3%.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Conclusions: Among RA patients, there is a high prevalence of comorbidities and their risk factors. In this multinational sample, variability among countries was wide, not only in prevalence but also in compliance with recommendations for preventing and managing these comorbidities. Systematic measurement of vital signs and laboratory testing detects otherwise unrecognised comorbid conditions.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt

Development of EULAR recommendations for the reporting of clinical trial extension studies in rheumatology

Objectives: Our initiative aimed to produce recommendations on post-randomised controlled trial (RCT) trial extension studies (TES) reporting using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) standard operating procedures in order to achieve more meaningful output and standardisation of reports. Methods: We formed a task force of 22 participants comprising RCT experts, clinical epidemiologists and patient representatives. A two-stage Delphi survey was conducted to discuss the domains of evaluation of a TES and definitions. A ‘0–10’ agreement scale assessed each domain and definition. The resulting set of recommendations was further refined and a final vote taken for task force acceptance. Results: Seven key domains and individual components were evaluated and led to agreed recommendations including definition of a TES (100% agreement), minimal data necessary (100% agreement), method of data analysis (agreement mean (SD) scores ranging between 7.9 (0.84) and 9.0 (2.16)) and reporting of results as well as ethical issues. Key recommendations included reporting of absolute numbers at each stage from the RCT to TES with reasons given for drop-out at each stage, and inclusion of a flowchart detailing change in numbers at each stage and focus (mean (SD) agreement 9.9 (0.36)). A final vote accepted the set of recommendations. Conclusions: This EULAR task force provides recommendations for implementation in future TES to ensure a standardised approach to reporting. Use of this document should provide the rheumatology community with a more accurate and meaningful output from future TES, enabling better understanding and more confident application in clinical practice towards improving patient outcomes

Consensus on the assessment of systemic sclerosis-associated primary heart involvement: World Scleroderma Foundation/Heart Failure Association guidance on screening, diagnosis, and follow-up assessment

INTRODUCTION: Heart involvement is a common problem in systemic sclerosis. Recently, a definition of systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement had been proposed. Our aim was to establish consensus guidance on the screening, diagnosis and follow-up of systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to investigate the tests used to evaluate heart involvement in systemic sclerosis. The extracted data were categorized into relevant domains (conventional radiology, electrocardiography, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, laboratory, and others) and presented to experts and one patient research partner, who discussed the data and added their opinion. This led to the formulation of overarching principles and guidance statements, then reviewed and voted on for agreement. Consensus was attained when the mean agreement was ⩾7/10 and of ⩾70% of voters. RESULTS: Among 2650 publications, 168 met eligibility criteria; the data extracted were discussed over three meetings. Seven overarching principles and 10 guidance points were created, revised and voted on. The consensus highlighted the importance of patient counseling, differential diagnosis and multidisciplinary team management, as well as defining screening and diagnostic approaches. The initial core evaluation should integrate history, physical examination, rest electrocardiography, trans-thoracic echocardiography and standard serum cardiac biomarkers. Further investigations should be individually tailored and decided through a multidisciplinary management. The overall mean agreement was 9.1/10, with mean 93% of experts voting above 7/10. CONCLUSION: This consensus-based guidance on screening, diagnosis and follow-up of systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement provides a foundation for standard of care and future feasibility studies that are ongoing to support its application in clinical practice

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY) : a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056). Acknowledgements Above all, we would like to thank the patients who participated in this trial. We would also like to thank the many doctors, nurses, pharmacists, other allied health professionals, and research administrators at NHS hospital organisations across the whole of the UK, supported by staff at the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network, NHS DigiTrials, Public Health England, Department of Health & Social Care, the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Public Health Scotland, National Records Service of Scotland, the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) at University of Swansea, and the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The RECOVERY trial is supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and NIHR (MC_PC_19056), the Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 222406/Z/20/Z) through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, and by core funding provided by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Health Data Research UK, the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, the NIHR Health Protection Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Support Funding. TJ is supported by a grant from UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_0002/14). WSL is supported by core funding provided by NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre. Tocilizumab was provided free of charge for this trial by Roche Products Limited. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals supported the trial through provision of casirivimab and imdevimab. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The sponsor was not involved in study design, data collection and analysis or manuscript writing.Peer reviewe

Pressure and pain In Systemic sclerosis/Scleroderma - an evaluation of a simple intervention (PISCES): randomised controlled trial protocol

Background: foot problems associated with Systemic Sclerosis (SSc)/Scleroderma have been reported to be both common and disabling. There are only limited data describing specifically, the mechanical changes occurring in the foot in SSc. A pilot project conducted in preparation for this trial confirmed the previous reports of foot related impairment and reduced foot function in people with SSc and demonstrated a link to mechanical etiologies. To-date there have been no formal studies of interventions directed at the foot problems experienced by people with Systemic Sclerosis. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate whether foot pain and foot-related health status in people with Systemic Sclerosis can be improved through the provision of a simple pressure-relieving insole. Methods: the proposed trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomised controlled clinical trial following a completed pilot study. In four participating centres, 140 consenting patients with SSc and plantar foot pain will be randomised to receive either a commercially available pressure relieving and thermally insulating insole, or a sham insole with no cushioning or thermal properties. The primary end point is a reduction in pain measured using the Foot Function Index Pain subscale, 12 weeks after the start of intervention. Participants will complete the primary outcome measure (Foot Function Index pain sub-scale) prior to randomisation and at 12 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include participant reported pain and disability as derived from the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Questionnaire and plantar pressures with and without the insoles in situ. Discussion: this trial protocol proposes a rigorous and potentially significant evaluation of a simple and readily provided therapeutic approach which, if effective, could be of a great benefit for this group of patients