Search

Objective Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity and inadequate response/intolerance to methotrexate have shown interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri) to be superior to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as monotherapy. This observational study aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNFi vs IL-6Ri as mono- or combination therapy in biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) -experienced RA patients with moderate/high disease activity. Methods Eligible b/ts-experienced patients from the CorEvitas RA registry were categorized as TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators, with subgroups initiating as mono- or combination therapy. Mixed-effects regression models evaluated the impact of treatment on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), patient-reported outcomes, and disproportionate pain (DP). Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted effects were reported. Results Patients initiating IL-6Ri (n = 286) vs TNFi monotherapy (n = 737) were older, had a longer RA history and higher baseline CDAI, and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy; IL-6Ri (n = 401) vs TNFi (n = 1315) combination therapy initiators had higher baseline CDAI and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy. No significant differences were noted in the outcomes between TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators (as mono- or combination therapy). Conclusion This observational study showed no significant differences in outcomes among b/ts-experienced TNFi vs IL-6Ri initiators, as either mono- or combination therapy. These findings were in contrast with the previous RCTs in biologic-naïve patients and could be explained by the differences in the patient characteristics included in this study. Further studies are needed to help understand the reasons for this discrepancy in the real-world b/ts-experienced population. Key Points• Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often require switching between biologics or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to achieve their treatment target.• Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in biologic-naïve RA patients with high disease activity and inadequate response/intolerance to methotrexate have shown interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri) to be superior to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as monotherapy; however, there are no RCTs comparing these therapies in a population previously treated with b/tsDMARDs (i.e., b/ts-experienced patients).• This observational study compared the effectiveness of TNFi vs IL-6Ri (as mono- or combination therapy) in b/ts-experienced RA patients with moderate or high disease activity and found no significant differences in clinical outcomes for the two treatments.• A discrepancy is noted between our study and RCTs, which have shown superiority of IL-6Ri therapy (albeit in biologic-naïve patients). Further analyses may help elucidate the reason for this discrepancy in the real-world b/ts-experienced population.

PURPOSE Fluctuations in weight have been linked to cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in the general population. We evaluated whether weight fluctuation was independently predictive of CV events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS We studied patients with RA from the Corrona registry. Weight change was categorized as loss of ≥10%, loss of 5-10%, stable, gain of 5-10%, and gain of ≥10%. We also categorized patients by quintile of variability in weight in prior observation periods. Cox proportional hazard models explored independent associations between time-varying weight change and weight variability and risk of CV events before and after adjusting for CV risk factors, RA disease features, and disability. RESULTS Among 31,381 participants, those that lost or gained 10% of their weight had greater disease activity, worse physical function, and were more likely to smoke, have diabetes, use corticosteroids, and be disabled. In adjusted models, a greater risk of CV events was observed in those that experienced 10% weight loss [HR: 1.18 (1.03,1.36) p=0.02] or weight gain [HR 1.20 (1.04,1.38) p=0.01]. The association between weight change and CV events was stronger among participants with BMI

BackgroundTargeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway.MethodsA systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document.ResultsThe consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still’s disease, Castleman’s disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring.ConclusionsThe document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

The term “immuno-autonomics” has been coined to describe an emerging field evaluating the interaction between stress, autonomic nervous system (ANS), and inflammation. The field remains largely unknown among practicing rheumatologists. Our objective was to evaluate the perspectives of rheumatologists regarding the role of stress in the activity and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A 31-item survey was conducted with 231 rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were asked to assess the role of stress in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and were provided with information regarding immuno-autonomics. They were asked to consider how immuno-autonomics resonated with their patient management needs. The majority of rheumatologists are eager to better understand non-response, believe that stress biology and ANS dysfunction interfere with disease activity, and embrace the theory that measurement of ANS via next-generation HRV may be able to evaluate autonomic dysfunction and the biology of stress. Rheumatologists are open to the idea that quantitative measurement of ANS function using next-generation HRV can be a helpful tool to RA practice. The majority agree that ANS state influences RA disease control and that quantitative measures of ANS state are helpful to RA practice. Rheumatologists also agree that patients with poor ANS function may be at risk for not responding adequately to conventional, biologic, or targeted synthetic DMARDs. Almost all would use an in-office test to quantitatively measure ANS using next-generation HRV. This study shows that rheumatologists are open to embracing evaluation of ANS function as a possible tool in the management and treatment of RA.

We performed a study of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) compared to non-TNFi biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis to test whether body mass index (BMI) modified the effect of each therapy.We utilized data from CorEvitas. We studied 3 clinical outcomes based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 6 months from therapy initiation: 1) achievement of low disease activity (LDA); 2) a change as large as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID); and 3) the absolute change. We categorized BMI and utilized restricted cubic splines to consider nonlinear associations. We used linear and logistic regression to evaluate associations with response, adjusting for confounders. To determine if comparative effectiveness of therapy varied by BMI, we tested for interactions between BMI and class of therapy.The sample included 2,891 TNFi and 3,010 non-TNFi initiators. Among all initiators, those with severe obesity experienced lower odds of achieving LDA or MCID and less improvement in CDAI score, although associations were attenuated with adjustment. Low BMI was associated with reduced response rates in adjusted models including lower odds of LDA (odds ratio 0.32 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.15, 0.71], P = 0.005). Analyses stratified by TNFi and non-TNFi therapies demonstrated no differences in clinical response rates for TNFi versus non-TNFi across BMI categories (all P for interaction0.05). Estimates for non-TNFi biologics fit within the 95% CI for TNFi.This study observed lower response rates among obese and underweight patients and no evidence of a superior effect of non-TNFi therapy over TNFi therapy in particular BMI categories.