Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis : phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. SETTING Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intraarticular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI RESULTS 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Peer reviewe

Head-to-head comparison of aggressive conventional therapy and three biological treatments and comparison of two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to treatment : study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-assessor, phase 4 study

Background: New targeted therapies and improved treatment strategies have dramatically improved the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unknown whether different early aggressive interventions can induce stable remission or a low-active disease state that can be maintained with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy, and whether they differ in efficacy and safety. The Nordic Rheumatic Diseases Strategy Trials And Registries (NORD-STAR) study will assess and compare (1) the proportion of patients who achieve remission in a head-to-head comparison between csDMARD plus glucocorticoid therapy and three different biological DMARD (bDMARD) therapies with different modes of action and (2) two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to first-line therapy. Methods/design: In a pragmatic, 80-160-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded, phase 4 study, 800 patients with early RA (symptom duration less than 24 months) are randomized 1: 1: 1: 1 to one of four different treatment arms: (1) aggressive csDMARD therapy with methotrexate + sulphasalazine + hydroxychloroquine + i. a. glucocorticoids (arm 1A) or methotrexate + prednisolone p.o. (arm 1B), (2) methotrexate + certolizumab-pegol, (3) methotrexate + abatacept, or (4) methotrexate + tocilizumab. The primary clinical endpoint is the proportion of patients reaching Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission at week 24. Patients in stable remission over 24 consecutive weeks enter part 2 of the study earliest after 48 weeks. Patients not achieving sustained CDAI remission over 24 consecutive weeks, exit the study after 80 weeks. In part 2, patients are re-randomized to two different de-escalation strategies, either immediate or delayed (after 24 weeks) tapering, followed by cessation of study medication. All patients remain on stable doses of methotrexate. The primary clinical endpoint in part 2 is the proportion of patients in remission (CDAI Discussion: NORD-STAR is the first investigator-initiated, randomized, early RA trial to compare (1) csDMARD and three different bDMARD therapies head to head and (2) two different de-escalation strategies. The trial has the potential to identify which treatment strategy to apply in early RA to achieve the best possible outcomes for both patients and society.Peer reviewe

Good physicians from the perspective of their patients

BACKGROUND: It is not currently known what is the patient's viewpoint of a "good" physician. We set out to define patient's priorities regarding different physician's attributes in 3 domains important in medical care. METHODS: Patients hospitalized or attending clinics at a large teaching hospital selected the 4 attributes that they considered most important out of 21 listed arbitrarily in a questionnaire. The questionnaire included 7 items each in the domains of patient autonomy, professional expertise and humanism. RESULTS: Participating patients (n = 445, mean age 57.5 ± 16 years) selected professional expertise (50%), physician's patience and attentiveness (38% and 30%, respectively), and informing the patient, representing the patient's interests, being truthful and respecting patient's preferences (25–36% each) as the most essential attributes. Patient's selections were not significantly influenced by different demographic or clinical background. Selections of attributes in the domain of patient's autonomy were significantly more frequent and this was the preferred domain for 31% and as important as another domain for 16% – significantly more than the domain of professional expertise (P = 0.008), and much more than the domain of humanism and support (P < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients studied want their physicians to be highly professional and expert clinicians and show humaneness and support, but their first priority is for the physician to respect their autonomy

International, multidisciplinary Delphi consensus recommendations on non-pharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia

Funding Information: The Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education for the PhD studentship. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)Objectives: To develop evidence-based expert recommendations for non-pharmacological treatments for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and depression in fibromyalgia. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary Delphi exercise was conducted. Authors of EULAR and the Canadian Fibromyalgia Guidelines Group, members of the American Pain Society and clinicians with expertise in fibromyalgia were invited. Participants were asked to select non-pharmacological interventions that could be offered for specific fibromyalgia symptoms and to classify them as either core or adjunctive treatments. An evidence summary was provided to aid the decision making. Items receiving >70% votes were accepted, those receiving <30% votes were rejected and those obtaining 30-70% votes were recirculated for up to two additional rounds. Results: Seventeen experts participated (Europe (n = 10), North America (n = 6), and Israel (n = 1)) in the Delphi exercise and completed all three rounds. Aerobic exercise, education, sleep hygiene and cognitive behavioural therapy were recommended as core treatments for all symptoms. Mind-body exercises were recommended as core interventions for pain, fatigue and sleep problems. Mindfulness was voted core treatment for depression, and adjunctive treatment for other symptoms. Other interventions, namely music, relaxation, hot bath, and local heat were voted as adjunctive treatments, varying between symptoms. Conclusions: This study provided evidence-based expert consensus recommendations on non-pharmacological treatments for fibromyalgia that may be used to individualise treatments in clinical practice targeting the diverse symptoms associated with fibromyalgia.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Methotrexate safety and efficacy in combination therapies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis : a post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NORD-STAR)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.OBJECTIVE: To investigate methotrexate safety and influence of dose on efficacy outcomes in combination with three different biological treatments and with active conventional treatment (ACT) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This post-hoc analysis included 812 treatment-naïve early RA patients who were randomized (1:1:1:1) in the NORD-STAR trial (NCT01491815) to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Methotrexate safety, doses, and dose effects on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission were assessed after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Compared with ACT, the prevalence of methotrexate-associated side effects was higher when methotrexate was combined with tocilizumab (HR 1.48 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.84]), but not with certolizumab-pegol (HR 0.99 [0.79 to 1.23]) or with abatacept (HR 0.93 [0.75 to 1.16]). With ACT as the reference, methotrexate dose was significantly lower when used in combination with tocilizumab (β -4.65 [95% CI -5.83 to -3.46], p<0.001), with abatacept (β -1.15 [-2.27 to -0.03], p=0.04), and numerically lower in combination with certolizumab-pegol (β -1.07 [-2.21 to 0.07], p=0.07). Methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the treatment combinations. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate was generally well tolerated in combination therapies, but adverse events were a limiting factor in receiving the target dose of 25 mg/week, and these were more frequent in combination with tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. On the other hand, methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the four treatment combinations at 24 weeks. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe