Search

Objective: Spinal radiographic progression is an important outcome in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). The objective of the phase IIIb SURPASS study was to compare spinal radiographic progression in patients with radiographic axial SpA treated with secukinumab (interleukin-17A inhibitor) versus adalimumab biosimilar (Sandoz adalimumab [SDZ-ADL]; tumor necrosis factor inhibitor)., Methods: Biologic-naive patients with active radiographic axial SpA, at high risk of radiographic progression (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hsCRP] ≥5 mg/L and/or ≥1 syndesmophyte[s] on spinal radiographs), were randomized (1:1:1) to secukinumab (150/300 mg) or SDZ-ADL (40 mg). The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (change from baseline [CFB] in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS] ≤0.5) on secukinumab versus SDZ-ADL at week 104 (primary endpoint), mean CFB-mSASSS, proportion of patients with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline with no new syndesmophyte(s), and safety were evaluated., Results: Overall, 859 patients (78.5% male, mSASSS 16.6, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 7.1, hsCRP 20.4 mg/L, and 73.0% with ≥1 syndesmophyte[s]) received secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or SDZ-ADL (n = 286). At week 104, the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression was 66.1%, 66.9%, and 65.6% (P = not significant, both secukinumab doses) and mean CFB-mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72 in secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ-ADL arms, respectively. Overall, 56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3% of patients on secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ-ADL, respectively, with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline did not develop new syndesmophyte(s) by week 104. There were no unexpected safety findings., Conclusion: Spinal radiographic progression over two years was low with no significant difference between secukinumab and SDZ-ADL arms. The safety of both treatments was consistent with previous reports., (© 2024 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F and IL-17A, with those of biologic/targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) in non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA) and AS., Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials until January 2023 for inclusion in Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs), including three b/tsDMARDs exposure networks: predominantly-naïve, naïve, and experienced. Outcomes were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)20, ASAS40 and ASAS partial remission (PR) response rates at 12-16 weeks. A safety NMA investigated discontinuations due to any reason and serious adverse events at 12-16 weeks., Results: The NMA included 36 trials. The predominantly-naïve network provided the most comprehensive results. In the predominantly-naïve nr-axSpA analysis, bimekizumab had significantly higher ASAS20 response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg [with loading dose (LD)/without LD], and comparable response rates vs other active comparators. In the predominantly-naïve AS analysis, bimekizumab had significantly higher ASAS40 response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg (without LD), significantly higher ASAS-PR response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg (with LD) and comparable response rates vs other active comparators. Bimekizumab demonstrated similar safety to that of other b/tsDMARDs., Conclusion: Across ASAS outcomes, bimekizumab was comparable with most b/tsDMARDs, including ixekizumab, TNF inhibitors and upadacitinib, and achieved higher response rates vs secukinumab for some ASAS outcomes in predominantly b/tsDMARD-naïve nr-axSpA and AS patients at 12-16 weeks. In a pooled axSpA network, bimekizumab demonstrated comparable safety vs other b/tsDMARDs., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate response rates at week 16 with ixekizumab in patients with radiographic axial SpA (r-axSpA) and elevated or normal/low baseline inflammation measured by serum CRP or spinal MRI using data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase III trials., Methods: Biologic-naïve (COAST-V) or TNF inhibitor-experienced (COAST-W) adults with active r-axSpA received 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or PBO or active reference [40 mg adalimumab every 2 weeks (ADAQ2W) in COAST-V. At week 16, patients receiving ixekizumab continued as assigned and patients receiving PBO or ADA were rerandomized 1:1 to IXEQ2W or IXEQ4W through week 52. Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40% (ASAS40) response rates were examined by baseline CRP (≤5 or >5 mg/l) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI spine inflammation score (<2 or ≥2)., Results: In the COAST-V/W integrated dataset (N = 567), significantly more patients treated with ixekizumab achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 by CRP ≤5 mg/l (27% IXEQ4W, P < 0.05; 35% IXEQ2W, P < 0.01 vs 12% PBO), CRP >5 mg/l (39% IXEQ4W, P < 0.001; 43% IXEQ2W, P < 0.001 vs 17% PBO), SPARCC MRI spine score <2 (40% IXEQ4W P < 0.01, 52% IXEQ2W P < 0.001 vs 16% PBO), and SPARCC MRI spine score ≥2 (44% IXEQ4W P < 0.001, 47% IXEQ2W P < 0.001 vs 19% PBO). ASAS40 response was observed with CRP ≤5 mg/l and SPARCC MRI spine score <2 with IXEQ4W (29%) and was significant with IXEQ2W (48%; P < 0.05) vs PBO (13%)., Conclusion: Ixekizumab demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of AS/r-axSpA in patients with and without elevated CRP or evidence of spinal inflammation on MRI., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT02696785, NCT02696798., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of ixekizumab on self-reported functioning and health in patients with active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA)., Methods: COAST-X was a randomized, controlled trial conducted in patients with nonradiographic axial SpA over 52 weeks. Participants were randomized at a ratio of 1:1:1 to receive 80 mg of ixekizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks or 2 weeks or placebo for 52 weeks. Self-reported functioning and health end points included the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey, Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) health index, and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) health-utility descriptive system., Results: Compared to placebo, ixekizumab treatment resulted in improvement of SF-36 physical component summary scores from baseline, with a score of 4.7 improving to 8.9 with ixekizumab therapy every 4 weeks (P < 0.05) and a score of 9.3 with ixekizumab therapy every 2 weeks (P < 0.01); the greatest improvements were observed in the domains of physical functioning, role-physical, and bodily pain at weeks 16 and 52. A higher proportion of patients receiving ixekizumab therapy every 2 weeks reported ≥3 improvements based on the ASAS health index from baseline to weeks 16 and 52 (P < 0.05). Significantly more patients receiving ixekizumab every 4 weeks reported improvements in "good health status" on the ASAS health index (ASAS score of ≤5) at weeks 16 and 52 (P < 0.05). Patients receiving ixekizumab reported improvements on the EQ-5D-5L compared to those who received placebo at week 16 (0.11 versus 0.17 for patients receiving treatment every 4 weeks and 0.19 for patients receiving treatment every 2 weeks; P < 0.05), which remained consistent at week 52. There were no clinical meaningful differences in responses based on the ixekizumab dosing regimen for patients who received ixekizumab therapy every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks., Conclusion: In patients with nonradiographic axial SpA, therapy with ixekizumab was superior to placebo in the improvement of self-reported functioning and health at weeks 16 and 52., (© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Individuals with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) have a greater cardiovascular (CV) risk than those in the general population. The effect of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) on CV risk, including on the development of hypertension (HTN), remains unclear, with some data suggesting higher risk. We assessed the association of TNFi use with incident HTN in a longitudinal AS cohort., Methods: Adults with AS enrolled in a prospective cohort in 2002-2018 were examined every 4-6 months. TNFi use during the preceding 6 months was ascertained at each study visit. We defined HTN by patient-reported HTN, antihypertensive medication use, or, on 2 consecutive visits, systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg. We evaluated the association between TNFi use and the development of HTN with marginal structural models, estimated by inverse probability-of-treatment weighting, to account for time-dependent confounders and informative censoring. Potential confounders included age, sex, race, site, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug use, and disease activity., Results: We included 630 patients without baseline HTN and with at least 1 year of follow-up. Of these, 72% were male, mean age was 39 ± 13 years, and 43% used TNFi at baseline. On follow-up (median 5 yrs), 129 developed incident HTN and 163 started on TNFi during follow-up. TNFi use was not associated with incident HTN (adjusted HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83-1.37)., Conclusion: In our prospective AS cohort, TNFi use was not significantly associated with incident HTN., (Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy/safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS)., Methods: This phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with active AS, meeting the modified New York criteria, with centrally read radiographs, and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day or placebo for 16 weeks. After week 16, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48. The primary and key secondary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society ≥20% improvement (ASAS20) and ≥40% improvement (ASAS40) responses, respectively, at week 16. Safety was assessed throughout., Results: 269 patients were randomised and treated: tofacitinib, n=133; placebo, n=136. At week 16, the ASAS20 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (56.4%, 75 of 133) versus placebo (29.4%, 40 of 136), and the ASAS40 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (40.6%, 54 of 133) versus placebo (12.5%, 17 of 136). Up to week 16, with tofacitinib and placebo, respectively, 73 of 133 (54.9%) and 70 of 136 (51.5%) patients had adverse events; 2 of 133 (1.5%) and 1 of 136 (0.7%) had serious adverse events. Up to week 48, with tofacitinib, 3 of 133 (2.3%) patients had adjudicated hepatic events, 3 of 133 (2.3%) had non-serious herpes zoster, and 1 of 133 (0.8%) had a serious infection; with placebo→tofacitinib, 2 (1.5%) patients had non-serious herpes zoster. There were no deaths, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events or opportunistic infections., Conclusions: In adults with active AS, tofacitinib demonstrated significantly greater efficacy versus placebo. No new potential safety risks were identified., Trial Registration Number: NCT03502616., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AD has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and UCB, and is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and UCB. PS-S and HX have no competing interests to declare. XB is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and UCB. LSG has received grant/research support from Pfizer Inc and UCB, and is a consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Novartis and UCB. DF, LW, JW, SM, CW, OD, LF and KSK are employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. DvdH is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB, and is Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This study evaluated the effect of ixekizumab (IXE) on self-reported functioning and health in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) who were either biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve or failed at least 1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)., Methods: In 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active-controlled (bDMARD-naïve only) trials, patients with r-axSpA were randomly assigned to receive 80 mg of IXE [every 2 weeks (Q2W) or every 4 weeks (Q4W)], placebo (PBO), or adalimumab (ADA; bDMARD-naïve only). After 16 weeks, patients who received PBO or ADA were rerandomized to receive IXE (Q2W or Q4W) up to Week 52. Functioning and health were measured by the generic 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the disease-specific Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS HI). Societal health utility was assessed by the 5-level EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L)., Results: At Week 16, both doses of IXE in bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patients resulted in larger improvement in SF-36, ASAS HI, and EQ-5D-5L versus placebo. For SF-36, the largest improvements were seen for the domains of bodily pain, physical function, and role physical. A larger proportion of patients reaching improvement in ASAS HI ≥ 3 as well as an achievement of ASAS HI good health status was reported in patients treated with IXE. Improvements were maintained through Week 52., Conclusion: IXE significantly improved functioning and health as assessed by both generic and disease-specific measures, as well as societal health utility values in patients with r-axSpA, as measured by SF-36, ASAS HI, and EQ-5D-5L at Week 16, and improvements were sustained through 52 weeks., (Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab for up to 52 weeks in two phase 3 studies of patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) who were biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naive (COAST-V) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced (COAST-W)., Methods: Adults with active r-axSpA were randomised 1:1:1:1 (n=341) to 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 (IXE Q2W) or 4 weeks (IXE Q4W), placebo (PBO) or 40 mg adalimumab Q2W (ADA) in COAST-V and 1:1:1 (n=316) to IXE Q2W, IXE Q4W or PBO in COAST-W. At week 16, patients receiving ixekizumab continued their assigned treatment; patients receiving PBO or ADA were rerandomised 1:1 to IXE Q2W or IXE Q4W (PBO/IXE, ADA/IXE) through week 52., Results: In COAST-V, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) responses rates (intent-to-treat population, non-responder imputation) at weeks 16 and 52 were 48% and 53% (IXE Q4W); 52% and 51% (IXE Q2W); 36% and 51% (ADA/IXE); 19% and 47% (PBO/IXE). Corresponding ASAS40 response rates in COAST-W were 25% and 34% (IXE Q4W); 31% and 31% (IXE Q2W); 14% and 39% (PBO/IXE). Both ixekizumab regimens sustained improvements in disease activity, physical function, objective markers of inflammation, QoL, health status and overall function up to 52 weeks. Safety through 52 weeks of ixekizumab was consistent with safety through 16 weeks., Conclusion: The significant efficacy demonstrated with ixekizumab at week 16 was sustained for up to 52 weeks in bDMARD-naive and TNFi-experienced patients. bDMARD-naive patients initially treated with ADA demonstrated further numerical improvements after switching to ixekizumab. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ixekizumab., Trial Registration Number: NCT02696785/NCT02696798., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MD has served as a consultant and received research grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. JC-CW has served as a consultant and/or speaker and/or has received research grants from Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, TSH Taiwan and UCB Pharma. RL has served as a consultant and/or advisor and/or has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Galapagos, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. RL is the director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV, a company that was indirectly contracted by Eli Lilly and Company to perform read services for the COAST program. JS has served as a consultant and/or speaker for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB Pharma. XB has served as a consultant and/or has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB Pharma. FVdB has served as a consultant and/or speaker and/or has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB Pharma. WPM has served as a consultant and/or received honoraria and/or research/educational grants from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, and is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited. JE has served as a consultant and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB Pharma. JAW has been a consultant and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. AD has been a consultant and/or received research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Glaxo Smith & Klein, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. DvdH has been a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB Pharma and is a Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV. TT has been a consultant and speaker for AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer and Takeda. XL, FZ, CCB, GG and HC are current employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. LSG has been a consultant and/or received research grants/support from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA)., Methods: We conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel., Results: Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended., Conclusion: These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in 3 randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Studies 1 and 2 included patients with radiographic axial SpA (anti-tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF]-naive patients and patients with inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF, respectively); study 3 patients had nonradiographic axial SpA., Methods: In all 3 studies, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg or placebo up to 24 weeks, after which placebo-treated patients were rerandomized to receive ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg. The primary end point in studies 1 and 2 was the proportion of patients who met the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for 40% improvement in disease activity (achieved an ASAS40 response). The primary end point in study 3 was the proportion of patients who achieved an ASAS20 response. Other disease activity and safety measures were also evaluated. A week 24 analysis of study 1 was preplanned to determine continuation of studies 2 and 3., Results: For study 1, the primary and major secondary end points were not met, and the study was discontinued. As a result, studies 2 and 3 were prematurely discontinued before they were fully enrolled. For all 3 studies, neither ustekinumab dose group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement over placebo on key efficacy end points. The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events in the ustekinumab groups was consistent with that in previous studies., Conclusion: In these 3 placebo-controlled trials, efficacy of ustekinumab in the treatment of axial SpA was not demonstrated. The safety profile was consistent with that of studies in other indications., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: At present, biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the only treatment recommended for patients with ankylosing spondylitis who have not responded to first-line treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The TORTUGA trial investigated the efficacy and safety of filgotinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis., Methods: In this completed, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, we enrolled adult patients from 30 sites in seven countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Spain, and Ukraine). Eligible patients had active ankylosing spondylitis and an inadequate response or intolerance to two or more NSAIDs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web-based response system to receive filgotinib 200 mg or placebo orally once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by current use of conventional synthetic DMARDs and previous receipt of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. The patients, study team, and study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS) at week 12, which was assessed in the full analysis set (ie, all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). Safety was assessed according to actual treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03117270., Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and July 2, 2018, 263 patients were screened and 116 randomly assigned to filgotinib (n=58) or placebo (n=58). 55 (95%) patients in the filgotinib group and 52 (90%) in the placebo group completed the study; three (5%) patients in the filgotinib group and six (10%) in the placebo group discontinued treatment. The mean ASDAS change from baseline to week 12 was -1·47 (SD 1·04) in the filgotinib group and -0·57 (0·82) in the placebo group, with a least squares mean difference between groups of -0·85 (95% CI -1·17 to -0·53; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 18 patients in each group, the most common being nasopharyngitis (in two patients in the filgotinib group and in four patients in the placebo group). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to permanent treatment discontinuation in two patients (a case of grade 3 pneumonia in the filgotinib group and of high creatine kinase in the placebo group). No deaths were reported during the study., Interpretation: Filgotinib is efficacious and safe for the treatment of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who have not responded to first-line pharmacological therapy with NSAIDs. Further investigation of filgotinib for ankylosing spondylitis is warranted., Funding: Galapagos and Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA)., Methods: A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework., Results: In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS., Conclusion: These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas., (© 2015, American College of Rheumatology.)

In spondyloarthritis (SpA), spontaneous remission is best described in reactive arthritis, a form of peripheral SpA. Prior SpA observational studies suggested that a significant percentage of patients reached spontaneous remission; however, these patients were followed up under older, broader European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) criteria or were not defined by specific criteria. In general, they were mixed populations of peripheral and axial disease, and the subsets were not differentiated when assessing end points such as remission. There are limited data on the natural history of axial SpA, in part because of the evolution of the criteria with the more recently developed Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria, including the designation of non-radiographic axial SpA and peripheral SpA. Clinical trials have been conducted with various remission end points including withdrawal of therapy to determine remission maintenance. The following review addresses the potential for remission in axial and peripheral SpA based on the data from both observational studies and clinical trials., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the effect of tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitors on progressive spinal damage in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS)., Methods: All AS patients meeting the modified New York criteria who had been monitored prospectively and had at least 2 sets of spinal radiographs a minimum of 1.5 years apart were included in the study (n=334). The patients received standard therapy, which included nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and TNFα inhibitors. Radiographic severity was assessed by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS). Patients with a rate of AS progression that was ≥1 mSASSS unit/year were considered progressors. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were done. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analysis were performed. A zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model was used to analyze the effect of TNFα inhibitors on the change in the mSASSS with varying followup periods. Potential confounders, such as disease activity (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index), the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level, HLA-B27 positivity, sex, age at onset, smoking burden (number of pack-years), and baseline damage, were included in the model., Results: TNFα inhibitor treatment was associated with a 50% reduction in the odds of progression, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.30-0.88, P=0.02). Patients with a delay of >10 years in starting therapy were more likely to experience progression as compared to those who started earlier (OR 2.4 [95% CI 1.09-5.3], P=0.03). In the ZINB model, the use of TNFα inhibitors significantly reduced disease progression when the gap between radiographs was >3.9 years. The protective effect of TNFα inhibitors was stronger after propensity score matching., Conclusion: Treatment with TNFα inhibitors appears to reduce radiographic progression in AS patients, especially with early initiation and with longer duration of followup., (Copyright © 2013 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

ObjectiveTo update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).MethodsWe conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.ResultsRecommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.ConclusionThese recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.

ObjectiveWe sought to develop a list of 5 tests, treatments, or services commonly used in rheumatology practice whose necessity or value should be questioned and discussed by physicians and patients.MethodsWe used a multistage process combining consensus methodology and literature reviews to arrive at the American College of Rheumatology's (ACR) Top 5 list. Rheumatologists from diverse practice settings generated items using the Delphi method. Items with high content agreement and perceived high prevalence advanced to a survey of ACR members, who comprise >90% of the US rheumatology workforce. To increase the response rate, a nested random sample of 390 rheumatologists received more intensive survey followup. The samples were combined and weighting procedures were applied to ensure generalizability. Items with high ratings underwent literature review. Final items were then selected and formulated by the task force.ResultsOne hundred five unique items were proposed and narrowed down to 22 items during the Delphi rounds. A total of 1,052 rheumatologists (17% of those contacted) participated in the member-wide survey, whereas 33% of those in the nested random sample participated; respondent characteristics were similar in both samples. Based on survey results and available scientific evidence, 5 items (relating to antinuclear antibodies, Lyme disease, magnetic resonance imaging, bone absorptiometry, and biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis) were selected for inclusion.ConclusionThe ACR Top 5 list is intended to promote discussions between physicians and patients about health care practices in rheumatology whose use should be questioned and to assist rheumatologists in providing high-value care.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) by prior biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) use. Methods: Data from a placebo‐controlled, double‐blind study of patients with active AS were analyzed. Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo to week 16; all received open‐label tofacitinib 5 mg BID to week 48 and were stratified by prior treatment (bDMARD‐naive or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi]–inadequate responder [IR], including bDMARD‐experienced [non‐IR]). Disease activity/safety were assessed throughout. Results: Of 269 patients, 207 (77%) were bDMARD‐naive; 62 (23%) were in the TNFi‐IR subgroup. TNFi‐IR patients had higher baseline BMI (28.0 vs. 26.1 kg/m2), longer symptom duration (14.4 vs. 13.2 years), and lower concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use (14.5% vs. 30.9%) than bDMARD‐naive patients. At week 16, for most outcomes, tofacitinib efficacy exceeded placebo for both subgroups and was sustained to week 48. At week 16, tofacitinib versus placebo differences were similar between bDMARD‐naive and TNFi‐IR patients (Assessment in Spondyloarthritis international Society 40 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 30.8% [19.1%‐42.6%] vs. 19.4% [1.7%‐37.0%]). Adverse event (AE) proportions were similar between tofacitinib‐treated bDMARD‐naive/TNFi‐IR patients (77.5%/77.4%) at week 48 with no deaths. A numerically higher proportion of tofacitinib‐treated TNFi‐IR versus bDMARD‐naive patients discontinued study drug (12.9% vs. 3.9%) or dose reduced/temporarily discontinued due to AEs (19.4% vs. 11.8%). Conclusion: Tofacitinib efficacy exceeded placebo at week 16 for bDMARD‐naive/TNFi‐IR patients and was sustained to week 48. The absolute magnitude of responses was generally greater in bDMARD‐naive patients versus TNFi‐IR patients. More TNFi‐IR versus bDMARD‐naive patients discontinued or dose reduced/temporarily discontinued tofacitinib due to AEs. Small sample size and sample size differences between subgroups limited the interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]