Determinants of the patient global assessment of well-being in early axial spondyloarthritis: 5-year longitudinal data from the DESIR cohort

Objectives. To investigate the determinants of patient well-being over time, and the influence of age, gender and education in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).Methods. Five-year data from DESIR, a cohort of early axSpA, were analysed. The outcome was the BAS-G over 5 years. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test the relationship between potential explanatory variables from five outcome domains (disease activity, physical function, spinal mobility, structural damage and axial inflammation) and BAS-G over time. Longitudinal relationships were analysed using an autoregressive GEE model. Age, gender and educational level were tested as effect modifiers or confounders.Results. A total of 708 patients were included. Higher BASDAI questions on fatigue [beta (95% CI): 0.17 (0.13, 0.22)], back pain [0.51 (0.46, 0.56)], peripheral joint pain [0.08 (0.04, 0.12)] and severity of morning stiffness [0.08 (0.03-0.13)], and higher BASFI [0.14 (0.08, 0.19)] were associated with a higher BAS-G. In the autoregressive model, the same variables except for morning stiffness were associated with a worsening in BAS-G. Age, gender and educational level were neither effect modifiers nor confounders.Conclusion. A higher level of back pain is associated with a worsening of patient well-being, as are, though to a lesser extent, higher levels of fatigue, peripheral joint pain and physical disability. Age, gender and educational level do not have an impact on these relationships.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

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

Twenty-year outcome and association between early treatment and mortality and disability in an inception cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register

Objective – To describe the outcome of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 20 years from symptom onset; to assess the association between early treatment (DMARDs/steroids) and mortality and disability over follow-up. Methods – Patients from the Norfolk Arthritis Register recruited from 1990-94 who met the 2010 ACR/EULAR RA criteria at baseline were included in this analysis. Demographic/clinical variables were collected at baseline and years 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 15 and 20. Disease activity (swollen/tender joint counts (SJC/TJC)), disability (HAQ) and mortality over 20 years are described. Association between treatment group (early treatment (ET) = treatment ≤6 months after symptom onset; late treatment (LT) = treatment >6 months; never treatment (NT) = no treatment) and mortality and disability were assessed using weighted pooled logistic regression and weighted multilevel mixed-effects linear regression respectively. Inverse weights were used to account for indication/censoring confounding. Results – This study included 602 patients with RA (median (IQR) age = 56 (44, 68) years; 65.9% women). Median disease activity was low over follow-up (SJC 1-3, TJC 3-6). Median HAQ rose after year 1 but remained at low/moderate levels (median 1.25 after year 10). There was reduced mortality risk in the ET and LT compared to NT group. ET group had comparable HAQ to NT group over follow-up (β 0.03, 95% CI -0.06, 0.12); LT group had increased disability (LT vs NT β 0.10, 95% CI 0.02, 0.17). Conclusion – This study indicates the importance of early treatment regarding long-term outcomes of patients with RA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

The effect of corticosteroid versus platelet-rich plasma injection therapies for the management of lateral epicondylitis : a systematic review

Introduction: Lateral epicondylitis is a common musculoskeletal disorder of the upper limb. Corticosteroid injection has been widely used as a major mode of treatment. However, better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease led to a major change in treating the disease, with new options including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are currently used. Objectives/research aim: To systematically evaluate the effect of corticosteroid versus PRP injections for the treatment of LE. Hypothesis: PRP injections provide longer-term therapeutic effect and less rate of complications compared to corticosteroid injection. Level of evidence: Level 2 evidence (4 included studies are of level 1 evidence, 1 study of level 2 evidence). Design: Systematic Review (according to PRISMA guidelines). Methods: Eleven databases used to search for relevant primary studies comparing the effects of corticosteroid and PRP injections for the treatment of LE. Quality appraisal of studies performed using Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist, and SIGN Methodology Checklist 2. Results: 732 papers were identified. Five randomised controlled trials (250 Patients) met the inclusion criteria. Clinical findings: Corticosteroid injections provided rapid symptomatic improvement with maximum effect at 6/8/8 weeks before symptoms recurrence, whereas PRP showed slower ongoing improvements up to 24/52/104 weeks(3 studies). Corticosteroid showed more rapid symptomatic improvement of symptoms compared to PRP up to the study end-point of 3 months (1 study). Comparable therapeutic effects of corticosteroid and PRP were observed at 6 weeks (1 study). Ultrasonographic Findings: (1) Doppler activity decreased more significantly in patients who received corticosteroid compared to PRP. (2) Reduced tendon thickness and more patients with cortical erosion noted in corticosteroid group whereas increased tendon thickness and less number of patients with common extensor tendon tears noted in PRP group. (3) Fewer patients reported Probe-induced tenderness and oedema in the common extensor tendon in both corticosteroid and PRP groups (2 studies). Conclusion: Corticosteroid injections provide rapid therapeutic effect in the short-term with recurrence of symptoms afterwards, compared to the relatively slower but longer-term effect of platelet-rich plasma

Genetic polymorphism of CYP1A2 but not total or free teriflunomide concentrations is associated with leflunomide cessation in rheumatoid arthritis

AIM(S): Leflunomide, via its active metabolite teriflunomide, is used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, yet approximately 20 to 40% of patients cease due to toxicity. The aim was to develop a time-to-event model describing leflunomide cessation due to toxicity within a clinical cohort and to investigate potential predictors of cessation such as total and free teriflunomide exposure and pharmacogenetic influences. METHODS: This study included individuals enrolled in the Early Arthritis inception cohort at the Royal Adelaide Hospital between 2000 and 2013 who received leflunomide. A time-to-event model in NONMEM was used to describe the time until leflunomide cessation and the influence of teriflunomide exposure and pharmacogenetic variants. Random censoring of individuals was simultaneously described. The clinical relevance of significant covariates was visualised via simulation. RESULTS: Data from 105 patients was analysed, with 34 ceasing due to toxicity. The baseline dropout hazard and baseline random censoring hazard were best described by step functions changing over discrete time intervals. No statistically significant associations with teriflunomide exposure metrics were identified. Of the screened covariates, carriers of the C allele of CYP1A2 rs762551 had a 2.29 fold increase in cessation hazard compared to non-carriers (95% CI 2.24 - 2.34, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: A time-to-event model described the time between leflunomide initiation and cessation due to side effects. The C allele of CYP1A2 rs762551 was linked to increased leflunomide toxicity, while no association with teriflunomide exposure was identified. Future research should continue to investigate exposure-toxicity relationships, as well as potentially toxic metabolites. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Ashley M. Hopkins, Michael D. Wiese, Susanna M. Proudman, Catherine E. O'Doherty, Richard N. Upton, David J. R. Foste

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

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion

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