Effectiveness of tocilizumab with and without synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis : results from a European collaborative study

Objectives To examine the effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) with and without synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) in a large observational study. Methods Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TCZ who had a baseline visit and information on concomitant sDMARDs were included. According to baseline data, patients were considered as taking TCZ as monotherapy or combination with sDMARDs. Main study outcomes were the change of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and TCZ retention. The prescription of TCZ as monotherapy was analysed using logistic regression. CDAI change was analysed with a mixed-effects model for longitudinal data. TCZ retention was analysed with a stratified extended Cox model. Results Multiple-adjusted analysis suggests that prescription of TCZ as monotherapy varied according to age, corticosteroid use, country of the registry and year of treatment initiation. The change of disease activity assessed by CDAI as well as the likelihood to be in remission were not significantly different whether TCZ was used as monotherapy or in combination with sDMARDs in a covariate-adjusted analysis. Estimates for unadjusted median TCZ retention were 2.3 years (95% CI 1.8 to 2.7) for monotherapy and 3.7 years (lower 95% CI limit 3.1, upper limit not estimable) for combination therapies. In a covariate-adjusted analysis, TCZ retention was also reduced when used as monotherapy, with an increasing difference between mono and combination therapy over time after 1.5 years (p=0.002). Conclusions TCZ with or without concomitant sDMARDs resulted in comparable clinical response as assessed by CDAI change, but TCZ retention was shorter under monotherapy of TCZ.Peer reviewe

Effectiveness of two different doses of rituximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in an international cohort : data from the CERERRA collaboration

Background: The approved dose of rituximab (RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis is 1000 mg x 2, but some data have suggested similar clinical efficacy with 500 mg x 2. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the regular and low doses given as first treatment course. Methods: Twelve European registries participating in the CERERRA collaboration (The European Collaborative Registries for the Evaluation of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis) submitted anonymized datasets with demographic, efficacy and treatment data for patients who had started RTX. Treatment effectiveness was assessed by DAS28 reductions and EULAR responses after 6 months. Results: Data on RTX dose were available for 2,873 patients, of whom 2,625 (91.4 %) and 248 (8.6 %) received 1000 mg x 2 and 500 mg x 2, respectively. Patients treated with 500 mg x 2 were significantly older, had longer disease duration, higher number of prior DMARDs, but lower number of prior biologics and lower baseline DAS28 than those treated with 1000 mg x 2. Fewer patients in the low-dose group received concomitant DMARDs but more frequently received concomitant corticosteroids. Both doses led to significant clinical improvements at 6 months. DAS28 reductions at 6 months were comparable in the 2 dose regimens [mean DeltaDAS28 +/- SD -2.0 +/- 1.3 (high dose) vs. -1.7 +/- 1.4 (low dose), p = 0.23 adjusted for baseline differences]. Similar percentages of patients achieved EULAR good response in the two dose groups, 18.4 % vs. 17.3 %, respectively (p = 0.36). Conclusions: In this large observational cohort initial treatment with RTX at 500 mg x 2 and 1000 mg x 2 led to comparable clinical outcomes at 6 months.Peer reviewe

Rheumatology training experience across Europe : Analysis of core competences

Publisher Copyright: © 2016 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: The aim of this project was to analyze and compare the educational experience in rheumatology specialty training programs across European countries, with a focus on self-reported ability. Method: An electronic survey was designed to assess the training experience in terms of self-reported ability, existence of formal education, number of patients managed and assessments performed during rheumatology training in 21 core competences including managing specific diseases, generic competences and procedures. The target population consisted of rheumatology trainees and recently certified rheumatologists across Europe. The relationship between the country of training and the self-reported ability or training methods for each competence was analyzed through linear or logistic regression, as appropriate. Results: In total 1079 questionnaires from 41 countries were gathered. Self-reported ability was high for most competences, range 7.5-9.4 (0-10 scale) for clinical competences, 5.8-9.0 for technical procedures and 7.8-8.9 for generic competences. Competences with lower self-reported ability included managing patients with vasculitis, identifying crystals and performing an ultrasound. Between 53 and 91 % of the trainees received formal education and between 7 and 61 % of the trainees reported limited practical experience (managing ≤10 patients) in each competence. Evaluation of each competence was reported by 29-60 % of the respondents. In adjusted multivariable analysis, the country of training was associated with significant differences in self-reported ability for all individual competences. Conclusion: Even though self-reported ability is generally high, there are significant differences amongst European countries, including differences in the learning structure and assessment of competences. This suggests that educational outcomes may also differ. Efforts to promote European harmonization in rheumatology training should be encouraged and supported.publishersversionPeer reviewe

2022 update

Funding Information: This study was funded by European League Against Rheumatism. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to—or adding—another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies

Effectiveness of TNF inhibitor switch in RA: results from the national Swedish register

Background Switching to a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) after discontinuation of a first in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common strategy. The reason for the switch from the first TNFi could potentially influence the response to therapy. Data on direct comparisons between TNFi after switching are limited. Methods The national Swedish register was used. RA patients who switched to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab) after failure of a TNFi as first-ever biologic were identified. Effectiveness of treatment was compared across the three drugs according to the first TNFi used, the reason for discontinuing and the drug survival. Drug survival across TNFi used as second biologic was compared. Results Half of all patients starting infliximab, adalimumab or etanercept during the period 2005-2012 discontinued treatment for various reasons. Of these patients, a third switched within 2 months to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab). Around 35% of all patients achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months. Regarding the switching strategy, best results were observed among patients who switched from infliximab to etanercept because of (secondary) inefficacy. Etanercept as second TNFi was associated with longer drug survival compared with infliximab. Conclusions Switching to a second TNFi after the failure of the first may lead to good clinical results. The inter-drug differences in drug survival on the second TNFi mirror those reported previously for the first TNFi, suggesting that these differences are not solely due to channelling bias

Clinical SLEDAI-2K zero may be a pragmatic outcome measure in SLE studies

Objectives: Development of therapies for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has in part been limited by the lack of suitable outcome measures in clinical trials. In the present post-hoc analysis of two clinical trials of belimumab, we investigated two potential outcomes, the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) and clinical SLE disease activity index 2000 (cSLEDAI-2K) zero, in relation to SLE responder index 4 (SRI-4). Methods: A total of 1684 SLE patients from the BLISS-52 (n = 865) and BLISS-76 (n = 819) trials were surveyed. Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) scores <0.5 (3-point scale) were used for comparisons. We used the chi-square test for comparisons and the phi coefficient for correlations. Results: At week 52, LLDAS was achieved by 8.6% of patients, cSLEDAI-2K = 0 by 34.5% and SRI-4 by 45.1%. cSLEDAI-2K = 0 showed the strongest correlation with PGA <0.5 (r φ  = 0.36, P < 0.001). cSLEDAI-2K = 0 unveiled the superiority of belimumab 10 mg/kg over placebo (P = 0.003) with a magnitude which was comparable to that of SRI-4 (P < 0.001). LLDAS displayed a more moderate separation (P = 0.033). Conclusions: LLDAS was a stringent measure. cSLEDAI-2K = 0 showed the strongest correlation with the clinician-based evaluation. Being based on the SLEDAI-2K only, cSLEDAI-2K = 0 may be considered a more pragmatic outcome measure in SLE studies compared with composite tools