Secukinumab provides sustained low rates of radiographic progression in psoriatic arthritis: 52-week results from a phase 3 study, FUTURE 5.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of secukinumab on radiographic progression through 52 weeks in patients with PsA from the FUTURE 5 study. METHODS: Patients with active PsA, stratified by prior anti-TNF use (naïve or inadequate response), were randomized to s.c. secukinumab 300 mg load (300 mg), 150 mg load (150 mg), 150 mg no load regimens or placebo at baseline, at weeks 1, 2 and 3 and every 4 weeks starting at week 4. Radiographic progression was assessed by change in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (vdH-mTSS; mean of two readers). Statistical analysis used a linear mixed-effects model (random slope) at weeks 24 and 52, and observed data at week 52. Assessments at week 52 included additional efficacy endpoints (non-responders imputation and mixed-effects models for repeated measures) and safety. RESULTS: The majority (86.6%) of patients completed 52 weeks of treatment. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (change from baseline in vdH-mTSS ⩽0.5) was 91.8, 85.2 and 87.2% in 300, 150 and 150 mg no load groups, respectively, at week 52. The change in vdH-mTSS from baseline to week 52 using random slope [mean change (s.e.)] was -0.18 (0.17), 0.11 (0.18) and -0.20 (0.18) in 300, 150 and 150 mg no load groups, respectively; the corresponding observed data [mean change (s.d.)] was -0.09 (1.02), 0.13 (1.39) and 0.21 (1.15). Clinical efficacy endpoints were sustained, and no new or unexpected safety signals were reported through 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab 300 and 150 mg with or without s.c. loading regimen provided sustained low rates of radiographic progression through 52 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02404350

Continuing versus withdrawing ixekizumab treatment in patients with axial spondyloarthritis who achieved remission : efficacy and safety results from a placebo-controlled, randomised withdrawal study (COAST-Y)

Objectives: The objective of COAST-Y was to evaluate the effect of continuing versus withdrawing ixekizumab (IXE) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who had achieved remission. Methods: COAST-Y is an ongoing, phase III, long-term extension study that included a double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, randomised withdrawal-retreatment period (RWRP). Patients who completed the originating 52-week COAST-V, COAST-W or COAST-X studies entered a 24-week lead-in period and continued either 80 mg IXE every 2 (Q2W) or 4 weeks (Q4W). Patients who achieved remission (an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)3.5 at any visit) after the 40-week RWRP, with time-to-flare as a major secondary endpoint. Results: Of 773 enrolled patients, 741 completed the 24-week lead-in period and 155 entered the RWRP. Forty weeks after randomised withdrawal, 83.3% of patients in the combined IXE (85/102, p<0.001), IXE Q4W (40/48, p=0.003) and IXE Q2W (45/54, p=0.001) groups remained flare-free versus 54.7% in the PBO group (29/53). Continuing IXE significantly delayed time-to-flare versus PBO, with most patients remaining flare-free for up to 20 weeks after IXE withdrawal. Conclusions: Patients with axSpA who continued treatment with IXE were significantly less likely to flare and had significantly delayed time-to-flare compared with patients who withdrew to PBO

Maintenance of clinical remission in early axial spondyloarthritis following certolizumab pegol dose reduction

Background:  The best strategy for maintaining clinical remission in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has not been defined. C-OPTIMISE compared dose continuation, reduction and withdrawal of the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor certolizumab pegol (CZP) following achievement of sustained remission in patients with early axSpA.  Methods: C-OPTIMISE was a two-part, multicentre phase 3b study in adults with early active axSpA (radiographic or non-radiographic). During the 48-week open-label induction period, patients received CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W). At Week 48, patients in sustained remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) 3.5 at any time point) during the double-blind period.  Results: At Week 48, 43.9% (323/736) patients achieved sustained remission, of whom 313 were randomised to CZP full maintenance dose, CZP reduced maintenance dose or placebo. During Weeks 48 to 96, 83.7% (87/104), 79.0% (83/105) and 20.2% (21/104) of patients receiving the full maintenance dose, reduced maintenance dose or placebo, respectively, were flare-free (p<0.001 vs placebo in both CZP groups). Responses in radiographic and non-radiographic axSpA patients were comparable.  Conclusions: Patients with early axSpA who achieve sustained remission at 48 weeks can reduce their CZP maintenance dose; however, treatment should not be completely discontinued due to the high risk of flare following CZP withdrawal.  Trial registration number: NCT02505542, ClinicalTrials.gov

Treating axial spondyloarthritis and peripheral spondyloarthritis, especially psoriatic arthritis, to target: 2017 update of recommendations by an international task force

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field

Applying science in practice: the optimization of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

Most authorities recommend starting biological agents upon failure of at least one disease-modifying agent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. However, owing to the absence of head-to-head studies, there is little guidance about which biological to select. Still, the practicing clinician has to decide. This review explores the application of published evidence to practice, discussing the goals of treatment, the (in) ability to predict individual responses to therapy, and the potential value of indirect comparisons. We suggest that cycling of biological agents, until remission is achieved or until the most effective agent for that individual patient is determined, deserves consideration in the current stage of knowledge

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

Objectives: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost

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