Progress in spondylarthritis. Mechanisms of new bone formation in spondyloarthritis

Targeted therapies that neutralize tumour necrosis factor are often able to control the signs and symptoms of spondyloarthritis. However, recent animal model data and clinical observations indicate that control of inflammation may not be sufficient to impede disease progression toward ankylosis in these patients. Bone morphogenetic proteins and WNTs (wingless-type like) are likely to play an important role in ankylosis and could be therapeutic targets. The relationship between inflammation and new bone formation is still unclear. This review summarizes progress made in our understanding of ankylosis and offers an alternative view of the relationship between inflammation and ankylosis

Destructive Dural Ectasia of Dorsal and Lumbar Spine with Cauda Equina Syndrome in a Patient with Ankylosing Spondylitis

We present a patient with longstanding ankylosing spondylitis complicated with cauda equina syndrome. The patient suffered from increasing pain in the leg with reduced sensitivity and extremely cold feet associated with incontinence. Diagnostic workup revealed dural ectasia, arachnoiditis and a spinal inflammatory mass leading to extensive vertebral bone destruction. Of interest, this was not only found in the lumbar spine region (which is typical in cases of cauda equina syndrome associated with ankylosing spondylitis) but also in the lower cervical spine (C7) and upper dorsal spine. Moreover, the bone destructive phenotype of this complication of long-standing AS contrasts with the usual characteristics of new bone formation and ankylosis. As initial treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs was not sufficiently successful, infliximab therapy was started which resulted in manifest clinical improvement as chronic pain, incontinence and laboratory signs of inflammation progressively disappeared

Treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis

Objective: To develop comprehensive recommendations for the treatment of the various clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) based on evidence obtained from a systematic review of the literature and from consensus opinion. Methods: Formal literature reviews of treatment for the most significant discrete clinical manifestations of PsA (skin and nails, peripheral arthritis, axial disease, dactylitis and enthesitis) were performed and published by members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). Treatment recommendations were drafted for each of the clinical manifestations by rheumatologists, dermatologists and PsA patients based on the literature reviews and consensus opinion. The level of agreement for the individual treatment recommendations among GRAPPA members was assessed with an online questionnaire. Results: Treatment recommendations were developed for peripheral arthritis, axial disease, psoriasis, nail disease, dactylitis and enthesitis in the setting of PsA. In rotal, 19 recommendations were drafted, and over 80% agreement was obtained on 16 of them. In addition, a grid that factors disease severity into each of the different disease manifestations was developed to help the clinician with treatment decisions for the individual patient from an evidenced-based perspective. Conclusions: Treatment recommendations for the cardinal physical manifestations of PsA were developed based on a literature review and consensus between rheumatologists and dermatologists. In addition, a grid was established to assist in therapeutic reasoning and decision making for individual patients. It is anticipated that periodic updates will take place using this framework as new data become available

Efficacy of tofacitinib in reducing pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis

Objective: To describe the efficacy of tofacitinib in reducing pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled trials. Methods: Data were collected from patients in seven tofacitinib studies: six phase III (four RA, two PsA) and one phase II study (AS), and grouped into five analysis populations based on rheumatic disease diagnosis and category of prior inadequate response (IR) to treatment: conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-IR (RA and PsA), tumour necrosis factor inhibitors-IR (RA and PsA), or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-IR (AS). Only patients who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo were included. Pain assessments included: Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain, Short-Form Health Survey 36v2 Question (Q)7 and Bodily Pain domain, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Q9 and Q14, EuroQol Five Dimensions Pain/Discomfort dimension and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index Q2 and Q3. Data were reported to month 6 (placebo to month 3) in the RA and PsA populations, and week 12 (tofacitinib and placebo) in the AS population. Results: Overall, 3330 patients were included in this analysis. In the RA and PsA populations, pain improvements in tofacitinib-treated patients compared with placebo were observed at the earliest time point assessed and at month 3 (maintained to month 6). In the AS population, pain improvements compared with placebo were observed at week 12. Conclusion: Tofacitinib was associated with rapid and sustained improvements across multiple pain measures in patients with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from OPAL Broaden-a phase III study of active psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA refractory to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-naïve in a 12-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]). Methods: Patients (N=422) received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo advancing to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID); and scores ≥normative values in: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) were determined. Nominal p values were cited without multiple comparison adjustments. Results: At month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, EQ-5D-3L, ASQoL and SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP) and vitality domain scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05); SF-36v2 social functioning with 5 mg twice daily (p≤0.05). Percentages reporting improvements ≥MCID in PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, BP and general health scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05) and were similar with adalimumab. Conclusion: csDMARD-IR patients with active PsA reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs with tofacitinib compared with placebo at Month 3

Effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase III, randomised controlled trial: OPAL Beyond.

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated in patients with PsA with inadequate responses to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) in a 6-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439]). Methods: Patients (N=394) received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo (advancing to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily at month 3). Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences and scores ≥normative values were determined in Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level (EQ-5D-3L), EQ-VAS and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL). Nominal p values are without multiple comparison adjustments. Results: At month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP), vitality and social functioning (SF) domains, FACIT-Fatigue Total score, EQ-5D-3L pain/discomfort, EQ-VAS and ASQoL scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (role physical [RP] with 10 mg twice daily only; p≤0.05). Patients reporting improvements ≥MCID (%) in PtGA, PGJS, Pain, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, RP, BP, SF (both tofacitinib doses) exceeded placebo (p≤0.05). Conclusion: TNFi-IR patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo over 3 months, which were maintained to month 6. Despite lower baseline scores, these improvements were similar to the csDMARD-IR TNFi-naive OPAL Broaden trial

The need for comparative data in spondyloarthritis

Spondyloarthritis comprises a group of inflammatory diseases, characterised by inflammation within axial joints and/or peripheral arthritis, enthesitis and dactylitis. An increasing number of biologic treatments, including biosimilars, are available for the treatment of spondyloarthritis. Although there are a growing number of randomised controlled trials assessing treatments in spondyloarthritis, there is a paucity of data from head-to-head studies. Comparative data are required so that clinicians and payers have the level of evidence required to inform clinical decision-making and health economic assessments. In the absence of head-to-head studies, statistical methods such as network meta-analyses and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) are used for assessing comparative effectiveness. Network meta-analysis can be used to compare treatments for trials using a common comparator (e.g. placebo); however, for those without a common comparator or where considerable heterogeneity exists between the study populations, a MAIC that controls for differences in study design and baseline patient characteristics may be used. MAICs, unlike network meta-analyses, are of value for longer-term comparisons beyond the placebo-controlled phase of clinical trials, which is important for chronic diseases requiring long-term treatment, like spondyloarthritis. At present, there are a number of limitations that restrict the effectiveness of MAIC, such as the poor availability of individual patient-level data from trials, which results in patient-level data from one trial being compared with published whole-population data from another. Despite these limitations, drug reimbursement agencies are increasingly accepting MAIC as a means of comparative effectiveness and greater methodological guidance is needed. This report highlights a number of challenges that are specific to conducting comparative studies like MAIC in spondyloarthritis, including disease heterogeneity, the paucity of biomarkers and the duration of studies required for radiographic endpoints in this slow-progressing disease

Long-term effectiveness and persistence of ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors in patients with psoriatic arthritis: final 3-year results from the PsABio real-world study

Objectives: To evaluate real-world persistence and effectiveness of the IL-12/23 inhibitor, ustekinumab or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) for psoriatic arthritis over 3 years. Methods: PsABio (NCT02627768), a prospective, observational study, followed patients with PsA prescribed first-line to third-line ustekinumab or a TNFi. Persistence and effectiveness (achievement of clinical Disease Activity for PSA (cDAPSA) low disease activity (LDA)/remission and minimal disease activity/very LDA (MDA/VLDA)) were assessed every 6 months. Safety data were collected over 3 years. Analyses to compare the modes of action were adjusted on baseline differences by propensity scores (PS). Results: In 895 patients (mean age 49.8 years, 44.7% males), at 3 years, the proportion of patients still on their initial treatments was similar with ustekinumab (49.9%) and TNFi (47.8%). No difference was seen in the risk of stopping/switching; PS-adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) for stopping/switching ustekinumab versus TNFi was 0.87 (0.68 to 1.11). In the overall population, cDAPSA LDA/remission was achieved in 58.6%/31.4% ustekinumab-treated and 69.8%/45.0% TNFi-treated patients; PS-adjusted ORs (95% CI) were 0.89 (0.63 to 1.26) for cDAPSA LDA; 0.72 (0.50 to 1.05) for remission. MDA/VLDA was achieved in 41.4%/19.2% of ustekinumab-treated and 54.2%/26.9% of TNFi-treated patients with overlapping PS-adjusted ORs. A greater percentage of TNFi-treated patients achieved effectiveness outcomes. Both treatments exhibited good long-term safety profiles, although ustekinumab-treated patients had a lower rate of adverse events (AEs) versus TNFi. Conclusion: At 3 years, there was generally comparable persistence after ustekinumab or TNFi treatment, but AE rates were lower with ustekinumab

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