A nationwide survey on patient's versus physician's evaluation of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis in relation to disease activity and route of administration : the Be-Raise study

Objectives : Biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the cornerstones of current treatment strategies for the disease. Surprisingly little information exists on whether the route of administration affects patients' treatment satisfaction. It is equally unclear whether rheumatologists are able to accurately perceive their patients' appreciation. Thus, the Belgian Beraise survey aimed to examine whether RA patient's experience of their current biological treatment coincided with the treating physician's perception. Methods : A nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted by 67 Belgian rheumatologists providing data obtained from 550 RA patients. Patients under stable dose of biologics for at least 6 months, were enrolled consecutively and all completed questionnaires. Separate questionnaires were completed by the treating rheumatologist which evaluated their patient's perception of the route of treatment administration. This study therefore evaluates whether a treating physician perceives the satisfaction with the route of administration to the same degree as the patient. Results : Completed questionnaires were obtained from 293 and 257 patients who obtained treatment via the intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration, respectively. 58.4% of patients were in DAS28-CRP(3) remission. Patient satisfaction with disease control was higher (44% scored >= 9) than that of the treating physician (35%), regardless of the route of administration (p<0.01). No differences were seen for the patients treated with an IV as opposed to a SC route of administration. The physician's perception of patient's satisfaction with disease control was markedly lower for IV treated patients as opposed to SC treated patients (p<0.001). Conclusions : Patients' satisfaction with biological treatment is high, but there is a considerable mismatch between patients' and rheumatologists' appreciation on the route of administration of biological therapy in RA. Physicians consistently consider IV biological therapy to be less satisfactory. Patient's appreciation is largely dependent on disease control, irrespective of the route of administration. Therefore, and encouraging shared decision making, we suggest that physicians and patients discuss the route of administration of biologicals in an open way

The impact of infliximab treatment on quality of life in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases

In this study, we compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and study the effect of treatment with infliximab on the HRQoL of patients with these diseases. Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) data from the placebo-controlled phases of 4 studies of infliximab in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (n = 1990) were evaluated. Data came from the Anti-TNF Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy (ATTRACT) (n = 428), the Safety Trial for Rheumatoid Arthritis with REMICADE Therapy (START) (n = 1083), the Ankylosing Spondylitis Study for the Evaluation of Recombinant Infliximab Therapy (ASSERT) (n = 279), and the Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Clinical Trial II (IMPACT II) (n = 200). SF-36 assessments were made at weeks 0, 10, 30, and 54 in ATTRACT, weeks 0, 6, and 22 in START, weeks 0, 12, and 24 in ASSERT, and weeks 0 and 14 in IMPACT II. All patient populations had significantly impaired physical aspects of HRQoL at baseline relative to the general population of the United States, and the magnitude of impairment was similar across the diseases. Mean baseline physical component summary scores were 29 in the RA cohort, 32 in the PsA cohort, and 29 in the AS cohort. In all 3 diseases, patients who received infliximab showed significant improvement in physical component summary scores compared with those who received placebo. The magnitude of the difference of improvement (effect size, 95%CI) between infliximab and placebo groups was similar in the AS (10.1, 9.2–11.0), PsA (8.6, 7.8–9.4), and RA (10.1, 9.2–11.0) cohorts. Patients with RA and those with PsA treated with infliximab also showed greater improvement in the mental component summary score than those in the placebo group with an effect size of 4.6 (4.2–5.1) in RA and 2.7 (2.4–3.1) in PsA. Patients in large randomized controlled studies of infliximab in RA, PsA, and AS had similar impairment in physical aspects of HRQoL at baseline and showed significantly greater improvement in HRQoL after treatment with infliximab

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

Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) Special Interest Group at OMERACT 11: outcomes of importance for patients with PMR

We worked toward developing a core outcome set for clinical research studies in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) by conducting (1) patient consultations using modified nominal group technique; (2) a systematic literature review of outcome measures in PMR; (3) a pilot observational study of patients presenting with untreated PMR, and further discussion with patient research partners; and (4) a qualitative focus group study of patients with PMR on the meaning of stiffness, using thematic analysis. (1) Consultations included 104 patients at 4 centers. Symptoms of PMR included pain, stiffness, fatigue, and sleep disturbance. Function, anxiety, and depression were also often mentioned. Participants expressed concerns about diagnostic delay, adverse effects of glucocorticoids, and fear of relapse. (2) In the systematic review, outcome measures previously used for PMR include pain visual analog scores (VAS), morning stiffness, blood markers, function, and quality of life; standardized effect sizes posttreatment were large. (3) Findings from the observational study indicated that asking about symptom severity at 7 AM, or "on waking," appeared more relevant to disease activity than asking about symptom severity "now" (which depended on the time of assessment). (4) Preliminary results were presented from the focus group qualitative study, encompassing broad themes of stiffness, pain, and the effect of PMR on patients' lives. It was concluded that further validation work is required before a core outcome set in PMR can be recommended. Nevertheless, the large standardized effect sizes suggest that pain VAS is likely to be satisfactory as a primary outcome measure for assessing response to initial therapy of PMR. Dissection of between-patient heterogeneity in the subsequent treatment course may require attention to comorbidity as a potential confounding factor

Azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial

Background: Long-term immunosuppressive treatment does not efficiently prevent relapses of lupus nephritis (LN). This investigator-initiated randomised trial tested whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was superior to azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance treatment. Methods: A total of 105 patients with lupus with proliferative LN were included. All received three daily intravenous pulses of 750 mg methylprednisolone, followed by oral glucocorticoids and six fortnightly cyclophosphamide intravenous pulses of 500 mg. Based on randomisation performed at baseline, AZA (target dose: 2 mg/kg/day) or MMF (target dose: 2 g/day) was given at week 12. Analyses were by intent to treat. Time to renal flare was the primary end point. Mean (SD) follow-up of the intent-to-treat population was 48 (14) months. Results: The baseline clinical, biological and pathological characteristics of patients allocated to AZA or MMF did not differ. Renal flares were observed in 13 (25%) AZA-treated and 10 (19%) MMF-treated patients. Time to renal flare, to severe systemic flare, to benign flare and to renal remission did not statistically differ. Over a 3-year period, 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, serum albumin, serum C3, haemoglobin and global disease activity scores improved similarly in both groups. Doubling of serum creatinine occurred in four AZA-treated and three MMF-treated patients. Adverse events did not differ between the groups except for haematological cytopenias, which were statistically more frequent in the AZA group (p=0.03) but led only one patient to drop out. Conclusions: Fewer renal flares were observed in patients receiving MMF but the difference did not reach statistical significance.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

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

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis

Objective To develop evidence-based recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods A task force comprising 7 rheumatologists, 15 other healthcare professionals and 3 patients was established. Following a systematic literature review performed to inform the recommendations, statements were formulated, discussed during online meetings and graded based on risk of bias assessment, level of evidence (LoE) and strength of recommendation (SoR; scale A–D, A comprising consistent LoE 1 studies, D comprising LoE 4 or inconsistent studies), following the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology standard operating procedure. Level of agreement (LoA; scale 0–10, 0 denoting complete disagreement, 10 denoting complete agreement) was determined for each statement through online voting. Results Four overarching principles and 12 recommendations were developed. These concerned common and disease-specific aspects of non-pharmacological management. SoR ranged from A to D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and recommendations ranged from 8.4 to 9.7. Briefly, non-pharmacological management of SLE and SSc should be tailored, person-centred and participatory. It is not intended to preclude but rather complement pharmacotherapy. Patients should be offered education and support for physical exercise, smoking cessation and avoidance of cold exposure. Photoprotection and psychosocial interventions are important for SLE patients, while mouth and hand exercises are important in SSc. Conclusions The recommendations will guide healthcare professionals and patients towards a holistic and personalised management of SLE and SSc. Research and educational agendas were developed to address needs towards a higher evidence level, enhancement of clinician–patient communication and improved outcomes