Search

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy over 5 years among MTX-naïve patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the long-term extension (LTE) of the phase 3 SELECT-EARLY trial., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or MTX. Patients who did not achieve CDAI remission and had < 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts at week 26 received rescue therapy (addition of MTX in the upadacitinib group and addition of upadacitinib in the MTX group). Efficacy assessments were evaluated over 5 years and are reported as observed (AO) for patients who received continuous monotherapy with upadacitinib 15/30 mg or MTX and by randomized group applying non-responder imputation (NRI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 patient-years were summarized over 5 years., Results: Of 945 patients randomized and treated, 775 (82%) completed week 48 and entered the LTE on study drug. Higher proportions of patients consistently achieved disease activity targets over 5 years with upadacitinib than MTX. In AO analyses, 53%/59% of patients attained CDAI remission with upadacitinib 15/30 mg versus 43% with MTX at week 260. NRI analyses showed better CDAI, DAS28(CRP), and ACR responses with upadacitinib relative to MTX at week 260 (all comparisons, nominal P < .001). Upadacitinib treatment also resulted in numerically greater inhibition of structural joint progression through week 260 compared to MTX. Most TEAEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher in patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of serious infections, herpes zoster, creatine phosphokinase elevation, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and neutropenia were numerically higher with upadacitinib than MTX. The observed safety profile of upadacitinib over 5 years was consistent with earlier trial results and integrated phase 3 safety analyses., Conclusions: Upadacitinib showed better clinical responses versus MTX in patients with RA throughout the 5-year trial. Higher rates of several AEs were observed with upadacitinib, especially in the 30 mg group, compared to MTX. When used as monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients, the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose showed better long-term efficacy versus MTX and an overall favorable benefit-risk profile., Trial Registration: NCT02706873., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are widely used for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there are no established biomarkers to predict a patient's response to these therapies. Prostanoids, encompassing prostaglandins, prostacyclins, and thromboxanes, are potent lipid mediators implicated in RA progression. Nevertheless, the influence of DMARDs on prostanoid biosynthesis in RA patients remains poorly understood. This study aims to assess the impact of various DMARDs on urinary prostanoids levels and to explore whether urinary prostanoid profiles correlate with disease activity or response to therapy., Methods: This study included 152 Swedish female patients with early RA, all rheumatoid factor (RF) positive, enrolled in the NORD-STAR trial (registration number: NCT01491815). Participants were randomized into four therapeutic regimes: methotrexate (MTX) combined with (i) prednisolone (arm ACT), (ii) TNF-α blocker certolizumab pegol (arm CZP), (iii) CTLA-4Ig abatacept (arm ABA), or (iv) IL-6R blocker tocilizumab (arm TCZ). Urine samples, collected before start of treatment and at 24 weeks post-treatment, were analyzed for tetranor-prostaglandin E metabolite (tPGEM), tetranor-prostaglandin D metabolite (tPGDM), 2,3-dinor thromboxane B 2 (TXBM), 2,3-dinor-6-keto prostaglandin F 1a (PGIM), leukotriene E 4 (LTE 4 ) and 12-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid (12-HETE) using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to analyze the change in urinary eicosanoids and their correlations to clinical outcomes., Results: Patients receiving MTX combined with CZP or TCZ exhibited significant elevations in urinary tPGEM and TXBM levels after 24 weeks of treatment. Other eicosanoids did not show significant alterations in response to any treatment. Baseline urinary eicosanoid levels did not correlate with baseline clinical disease activity index (CDAI) levels, nor with changes in CDAI from baseline to week 24. Their levels were also similar between patients who achieved CDAI remission and those with active disease at week 24., Conclusions: Treatment with anti-TNF or anti-IL6R agents in early RA patients leads to an increased systemic production of proinflammatory and prothrombotic prostanoids. However, urinary eicosanoid levels do not appear to be predictive of the response to DMARDs therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: We investigated methotrexate safety and the influence of dose on efficacy outcomes in combination with three different biologic treatments and with active conventional treatment (ACT) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: This post hoc analysis included 812 treatment-naïve patients with early RA who were randomized (1:1:1:1) in the NORD-STAR trial to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Methotrexate safety, doses, and dose effects on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission were assessed after 24 weeks of treatment., Results: Compared with ACT, the prevalence of methotrexate-associated side effects was higher when methotrexate was combined with tocilizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.84) but not with certolizumab-pegol (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.23) or with abatacept (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.16). With ACT as the reference, the methotrexate dose was significantly lower when used in combination with tocilizumab (β -4.65, 95% CI -5.83 to -3.46; P < 0.001) or abatacept (β -1.15, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.03; P = 0.04), and it was numerically lower in combination with certolizumab-pegol (β -1.07, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.07; P = 0.07). Methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the treatment combinations., Conclusion: Methotrexate was generally well tolerated in combination therapies, but adverse events were a limiting factor in receiving the target dose of 25 mg/wk, and these were more frequent in combination with tocilizumab versus ACT. On the other hand, methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the four treatment combinations at 24 weeks., (© 2023 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)-related retinal toxicity in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) inception cohort., Methods: Data were collected at annual study visits between 1999 and 2019. We followed patients with incident SLE from first visit on HCQ (time zero) up to time of retinal toxicity (outcome), death, loss-to-follow-up or end of study. Potential retinal toxicity was identified from SLICC Damage Index scores; cases were confirmed with chart review. Using cumulative HCQ duration as the time axis, we constructed univariate Cox regression models to assess if covariates (ie, HCQ daily dose/kg, sex, race/ethnicity, age at SLE onset, education, body mass index, renal damage, chloroquine use) were associated with HCQ-related retinal toxicity., Results: We studied 1460 patients (89% female, 52% white). Retinal toxicity was confirmed in 11 patients (incidence 1.0 per 1000 person-years, 0.8% overall). Average cumulative time on HCQ in those with retinal toxicity was 7.4 (SD 3.2) years; the first case was detected 4 years after HCQ initiation. Risk of retinal toxicity was numerically higher in older patients at SLE diagnosis (univariate HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09)., Conclusions: This is the first assessment of HCQ and retinal disease in incident SLE. We did not see any cases of retinopathy within the first 4 years of HCQ. Cumulative HCQ may be associated with increased risk. Ophthalmology monitoring (and formal assessment of cases of potential toxicity, by a retinal specialist) remains important, especially in patients on HCQ for 10+ years, those needing higher doses and those of older age at SLE diagnosis., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All the following relationships are outside the submitted work. AEC—consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exagen Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). CG—consulting fees from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Morton Grove Pharmaceutical (MGP), Sanofi and UCB. RR-G—consulting fees from GSK, Immuncor and ThermoFisher. DI—consulting fees from Amgen, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly (the honoraria are passed onto a local arthritis charity). AR—consulting fees from Lilly. PRF—participation in advisory boards from AbbVie, AstraZeneca and Lilly. MK—consulting fees from GSK. MI—consulting fees from AbbVie, UCB, Novartis, Janssen and Lilly., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: In early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) plasma levels of specific chemokines have been shown to correlate with disease activity. However, it is unclear whether pre-treatment chemokine levels can predict disease remission at week 24, and it is not known how biological treatments with different modes of action affect plasma chemokine levels in patients with untreated eRA., Methods: This study included 347 Swedish patients with untreated eRA from the larger NORD-STAR randomised treatment trial. Here, eRA patients were treated with methotrexate combined with either prednisolone, anti-TNF (certolizumab-pegol), CTLA-4Ig (abatacept) or anti-IL6 receptor (tocilizumab). The primary clinical outcome was remission by clinical disease activity index (CDAI) defined as CDAI ≤ 2.8. Disease activity was assessed by CDAI, DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP, swollen joint counts, tender joint counts, ESR and CRP. The plasma concentrations of 14 chemokines were measured at baseline and after 24 weeks of treatment by bead-based immunoassay or ELISA., Results: Baseline plasma concentrations of CXCL10, CXCL8, CXCL9, CXCL11, CXCL5 and CCL2 correlated with baseline disease activity measures. After 24 weeks of treatment, plasma levels of CXCL10, CXCL8, CXCL9, CXCL11 and CXCL13 decreased in all treatment groups except in patients treated with anti-IL6 receptor. In multivariate factor analysis, plasma chemokine levels at baseline could not differentiate patients who attained remission by week 24 from those who did not in any of the treatment groups., Conclusions: In patients with untreated eRA, plasma levels of several chemokines correlate with disease activity at baseline but cannot predict remission after 24 weeks of treatment with methotrexate combined with prednisolone, anti‑TNF, CTLA‑4Ig or anti‑IL6R.

Background: Fatigue, a common symptom of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is detrimental to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and HRQoL and explored associations between fatigue, related patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and disease activity in RA patients., Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled data from three Phase 3 studies of tofacitinib (ORAL Scan; ORAL Standard; ORAL Sync) in RA patients. Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, placebo, or adalimumab (active control; ORAL Standard only, not powered for superiority) with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Assessed through Month (M)12 were changes from baseline in disease activity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep scale (MOS-SS), and Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) composite/domain scores, and proportions of patients reporting improvements from baseline in FACIT-F total and SF-36 domain scores ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) or ≥ population normative values. Pearson correlations examined associations among PROs at M6. Treatment comparisons were exploratory, with p < 0.05 considered nominally significant., Results: Generally, active treatment led to significant improvements from baseline in FACIT-F total, and MOS-SS and SF-36 composite/domain scores vs placebo, observed by M1 and maintained through M6 (last placebo-controlled time point). Through M6, more patients achieved improvements from baseline ≥ MCID and achieved scores ≥ population normative values in FACIT-F total and SF-36 domain scores with tofacitinib vs placebo. Through M12, some nominally significant improvements with tofacitinib vs adalimumab were observed. With active treatment at M6, FACIT-F scores were moderately (0.40-0.59) to highly (≥ 0.60) correlated with SF-36 composite/domain scores (particularly vitality), moderately correlated with most MOS-SS domain scores, and highly correlated with MOS-SS Sleep Problems Index I scores. Disease activity correlations were moderate with FACIT-F scores and low (0.20-0.39) to moderate with SF-36 general health domain/composite scores., Conclusion: Tofacitinib and adalimumab generally conferred significant, clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, sleep, and HRQoL (including vitality) vs placebo through M6, with improvements maintained to M12. M6 correlations between FACIT-F, PROs of sleep, HRQoL, and disease activity underscore the interrelatedness of multiple PROs and disease activity in RA., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00847613 (registered: February 19, 2009); NCT00853385 (registered: March 2, 2009); NCT00856544 (registered: March 5, 2009)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Treatment with CTLA-4Ig blocks T-cell activation and is clinically effective in RA. However, it is unknown if specific CD4+ T-cell subsets in blood at baseline predict remission after CTLA-4Ig, or other biological treatments with different modes of action, and how treatment affects CD4+ T cells in patients with untreated early RA (eRA)., Methods: This study included 60 patients with untreated eRA from a larger randomized trial. They were treated with methotrexate combined with CTLA-4Ig (abatacept, n = 17), anti-IL6 receptor (tocilizumab, n = 21) or anti-TNF (certolizumab-pegol, n = 22). Disease activity was assessed by clinical disease activity index (CDAI), DAS28, swollen joint counts, tender joint counts, CRP and ESR. The primary outcome was CDAI remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8) at week 24. Proportions of 12 CD4+ T-cell subsets were measured by flow cytometry at baseline and after 4, 12 and 24 weeks of treatment., Results: In patients treated with CTLA-4Ig, the proportions of PD-1+TFh and CTLA-4+ conventional CD4+ T cells at baseline predicted CDAI remission at week 24. CD4+ T-cell subset proportions could not predict remission after treatment with anti-IL6R or anti-TNF. The percentage of regulatory T cells (Tregs) expressing CTLA-4 decreased in all treatment arms by 24 weeks, but only CTLA-4Ig treatment significantly reduced the proportions of Tregs and PD-1+T follicular helper (TFh) cells., Conclusion: These findings indicate that circulating proportions PD-1+TFh and CTLA-4+ conventional CD4+ T cells at baseline may serve as predictive biomarkers for remission in early RA after CTLA-4Ig treatment., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To compare the pain course between methotrexate (MTX)-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients randomized to infliximab (IFX) versus sulfasalazine (SSZ) plus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)., Methods: The randomized, controlled, open-label Swedish Pharmacotherapy (SWEFOT) trial enrolled new-onset RA patients from October 2002 to December 2005. After 3 months of receiving MTX, patients not reaching low disease activity (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints score ≤3.2) were randomized to adding IFX (n = 128) or SSZ plus HCQ (n = 130) and followed for 21 months. Here, outcomes included area under the curve (AUC) for visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, unacceptable pain (VAS pain score >40 mm [range 0-100]), and unacceptable pain despite inflammation control (refractory pain; VAS pain score >40 plus C-reactive protein level <10 mg/liter). Between-group differences were analyzed with multivariate regression models., Results: Overall, 50% of randomized patients (n = 258) in the crude setting reported unacceptable pain at randomization, declining to 29% at 21 months (P < 0.001), when refractory pain constituted 82% of all unacceptable pain. Comparing randomized arms (intent-to-treat analysis), the AUC for VAS pain was lower in the MTX plus IFX group (P = 0.01), and at 21 months, 32% of patients receiving MTX plus IFX and 45% receiving MTX plus SSZ plus HCQ had unacceptable pain (adjusted relative risk 0.68 [95% confidence interval 0.51, 0.90]; P = 0.008). Regarding refractory pain, no between-group differences were observed., Conclusion: Despite active combination treatment, almost one-third of new-onset RA patients reported unacceptable pain after 21 months, and refractory pain constituted more than 4/5 of this pain load. Adding IFX versus SSZ plus HCQ to MTX reduced both cumulative pain and unacceptable pain at 21 months, suggesting less long-term pain for the biologic therapy. These results display insufficient effects of current treatment strategies on inflammation-independent pain components, warranting alternative approaches in affected patients., (© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: The type I interferon (IFN) gene signature is present in a subgroup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Protein levels of IFNα have not been measured in RA and it is unknown whether they associate with clinical characteristics or treatment effect., Methods: Patients with early untreated RA (n = 347) were randomized to methotrexate combined with prednisone, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Plasma IFNα protein levels were determined by single molecular array (Simoa) before and 24 weeks after treatment initiation and were related to demographic and clinical factors including clinical disease activity index, disease activity score in 28 joints, swollen and tender joint counts, and patient global assessment., Results: IFNα protein positivity was found in 26% of the patients, and of these, 92% were double-positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA). IFNα protein levels were reduced 24 weeks after treatment initiation, and the absolute change was similar irrespective of treatment. IFNα protein positivity was associated neither with disease activity nor with achievement of CDAI remission 24 weeks after randomization., Conclusion: IFNα protein positivity is present in a subgroup of patients with early RA and associates with double-positivity for autoantibodies but not with disease activity. Pre-treatment IFNα positivity did not predict remission in any of the treatment arms, suggesting that the IFNα system is distinct from the pathways of TNF, IL-6, and T-cell activation in early RA. A spin-off study of the NORD-STAR randomized clinical trial, NCT01491815 (ClinicalTrials), registered 12/08/2011, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01491815 ., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: To compare mortality risk over up to 14 years of follow-up in methotrexate-refractory patients with early RA randomized to a strategy starting with addition of infliximab vs addition of SSZ and HCQ., Methods: Data was from the two-arm, parallel, randomized, active-controlled, open-label Swefot trial in which patients with early RA (symptom duration <1 y) were recruited from 15 rheumatology clinics in Sweden (2002-2005). Patients who did not achieve low disease activity after 3-4 months of MTX were randomized to addition of infliximab (n = 128) or SSZ and HCQ (n = 130). Participants were followed until death, emigration, or end of follow-up, whichever came first. Analyses were by intention-to-treat., Results: Over an average follow-up of 13 years, there were 13 and 16 deaths, respectively [8.8 vs 10.6 deaths per 1000 person-years; mortality hazard ratio 1.2 (95% CI: 0.6, 2.5); P =0.62]. The 1-year mortality was 0.8% in both treatment arms, the 5-year mortality was 2.3% for the infliximab arm compared with 1.5% for the conventional combination treatment arm, while the 10-year mortality was 7.8% and 7.7%, respectively. After 5 years, ∼50% of patients in the conventional combination therapy arm had switched to biologic treatment, and 50% in the biologic arm had discontinued treatment with a biologic DMARD., Conclusion: No difference in mortality risk could be observed over up to 14 years of follow-up between treatment strategy groups. At 5 years (3 years after trial cessation), 50% of patients remained on their assigned therapy, reflecting that DMARD combination is an adequate treatment strategy in 50% of patients., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT00764725., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: RF and ACPA are used as diagnostic tools and their presence has been associated with clinical response to some biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in RA. This study compared the impact of seropositivity on drug discontinuation and effectiveness of bDMARDs in patients with RA, using head-to-head comparisons in a real-world setting., Methods: We conducted a pooled analysis of 16 observational RA registries. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of RA, initiation of treatment with rituximab (RTX), abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ) or TNF inhibitors (TNFis) and available information on RF and/or ACPA status. Drug discontinuation was analysed using Cox regression, including drug, seropositivity, their interaction, adjusting for concomitant and past treatments and patient and disease characteristics and accounting for country and calendar year of bDMARD initiation. Effectiveness was analysed using the Clinical Disease Activity Index evolution over time., Results: Among the 27 583 eligible patients, the association of seropositivity with drug discontinuation differed across bDMARDs (P for interaction <0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for seropositive compared with seronegative patients were 1.01 (95% CI 0.95, 1.07) for TNFis, 0.89 (0.78, 1.02)] for TCZ, 0.80 (0.72, 0.88) for ABA and 0.70 (0.59, 0.84) for RTX. Adjusted differences in remission and low disease activity rates between seropositive and seronegative patients followed the same pattern, with no difference in TNFis, a small difference in TCZ, a larger difference in ABA and the largest difference in RTX (Lundex remission difference +5.9%, low disease activity difference +11.6%)., Conclusion: Seropositivity was associated with increased effectiveness of non-TNFi bDMARDs, especially RTX and ABA, but not TNFis., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: The SELECT-EARLY trial was undertaken to study the effect of upadacitinib, an oral, reversible Janus kinase 1-selective inhibitor, as monotherapy in patients with predominantly early rheumatoid arthritis who were naive for or had limited exposure to methotrexate (MTX)., Methods: Patients (n = 947) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily doses of upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or weekly MTX (7.5-20 mg/week) for 24 weeks. The primary end points were the proportion of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) improvement criteria at week 12, and the proportion in whom a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) of <2.6 was achieved at week 24. Data are presented through week 24., Results: At baseline, the median disease duration was 0.5 years (range 0-44 years). A total of 840 patients (89%) completed 24 weeks of treatment. The study met both primary end points for upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg versus MTX (ACR50 was achieved at week 12 in 52% and 56% of patients, respectively, versus 28% [P < 0.001], and DAS28-CRP <2.6 was achieved at week 24 in 48% and 50% of patients, respectively, versus 19% [P < 0.001]). Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded for both upadacitinib doses versus MTX. Overall, 88% of patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 89% of patients receiving 30 mg, respectively, had no radiographic progression (modified total Sharp score ≤0) compared to 78% of those receiving MTX (P < 0.01). Through week 24, the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the MTX arm (65%) and upadacitinib 15 mg arm (64%), but was slightly higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg arm (71%). Six deaths were reported (2 in the upadacitinib 15 mg arm, 3 in the upadacitinib 30 mg arm, and 1 in the MTX arm)., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that patients receiving either dose of upadacitinib monotherapy experienced significant improvements in clinical, radiographic, and PROs compared to patients receiving MTX., (© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: In early RA, some patients exhibit rapid radiographic progression (RRP) after one year, associated with poor functional prognosis. Matrices predicting this risk have been proposed, lacking precision or inadequately calibrated. We developed a matrix to predict RRP with high precision and adequate calibration., Methods: Post-hoc analysis by pooling individual data from cohorts (ESPOIR and Leuven cohorts) and clinical trials (ASPIRE, BeSt and SWEFOT trials). Adult DMARD-naïve patients with active early RA for which the first therapeutic strategy after inclusion was to prescribe methotrexate or leflunomide were included. A logistic regression model to predict RRP was built. The best model was selected by 10-fold stratified cross-validation by maximizing the Area Under the Curve. Calibration and discriminatory power of the model were checked. The probabilities of RRP for each combination of levels of baseline characteristics were estimated., Results: 1306 patients were pooled. 20.6% exhibited RRP. Four predictors were retained: rheumatoid factor positivity, presence of at least one RA erosion on X-rays, CRP > 30mg/l, number of swollen joints. The matrix estimates RRP probability for 36 combinations of level of baseline characteristics with a greatly enhanced precision compared with previously published matrices (95% CI: from ± 0.02 minimum to ± 0.08 maximum) and model calibration is excellent (P = 0.79)., Conclusion: A matrix proposing RRP probability with high precision and excellent calibration in early RA was built. Although the matrix has moderate sensitivity and specificity, it is easily usable and may help physicians and patients to make treatment decisions in daily clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying anti rheumatic dugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: An SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention for the management of RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments still without registry data (eg, sarilumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib, upadacitinib), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term extensions (LTEs) were used. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed according to standard procedures., Results: Forty-two observational studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, addressing safety outcomes with bDMARDs and sDMARDs. Nine studies showed no difference in the risk of serious infections across bDMARDs and two studies (high RoB) showed an increased risk with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 3.1-3.9). The risk of Herpes zoster infection was similar across bDMARDs, but one study showed an increased risk with tofacitinib compared with abatacept (adjusted HR (aHR) 2.0). Five studies showed no increased risk of cancer for bDMARDs compared with csDMARDs. An increased risk of lower intestinal perforation was found for tocilizumab compared with csDMARDs (aHR 4.5) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (aHR 2.6-4.0). Sixty manuscripts reported safety data from RCTs/LTEs. Overall, no unexpected safety outcomes were found, except for the possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with JAK inhibitors., Conclusion: Data obtained by this SLR confirm the known safety profile of bDMARDs. The risk of VTE in RA, especially in patients on JAK inhibitors, needs further evaluation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AS: Honoraria as speaker: Novartis. AK: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer. JS: Grants from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB. DvdH: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB Pharma and is Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. MD: Received research grants from and honorarium fees for his participation at advisory boards and/or symposium organised by Pfizer, UCB, AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Roche and Merck. RvV: Research support and grants: BMS, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Consultancy, honoraria: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier and UCB. IMcI: grants from AstraZeneca, UCB, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Compugen, Boehringer, Celgene and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Causeway, Lilly, Leo and Novimmune. JB: Honoraria as speaker and for consulting: Abbvie, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and SUN. GRB: Honoraria as speaker and for consulting: Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, UCB, Roche and Sanofi. MdW: Over the last two years, Stichting Tools has received fees for lectures or consultancy for contributions of Maarten de Wit from Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag and Pfizer. LF: None. RL: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB and is Director of Rheumatology Consultancy bv., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019., Results: 234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products., Conclusion: This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AK: Honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis and Pfizer. AS: Honoraria as speaker: JSS: Grants from Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB. DvdH: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma and is Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. MD: Received research grants from and honorarium fees for his participation at advisory boards and/or symposium organised by PFIZER, UCB, ABBVIE, LILLY, NOVARTIS, BMS, ROCHE, UCB, MERCK. RvV: Research Support and Grants: BMS, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Consultancy, honoraria: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, UCB. IM: grants from Astra Zeneca, UCB, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Compugen, Boehringer, Celgene and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Causeway, Lilly, Leo, Novimmune. JWB: Honoraria as speaker and for consulting: Abbvie, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, SUNGB: Honoraria as speaker and for consulting: Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Sanofi. MdW: Over the last 2 years Stichting Tools has received fees for lectures or consultancy for contributions of Maarten de Wit from Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag and Pfizer. LF: none. RL: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB and is Director of Rheumatology Consultancy bv., (© 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 Rituximab-mediated late-onset neutropenia (LON) has been described in various diseases. We investigated its occurrence, consequences and contributing factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods Rituximab-treated patients from the Karolinska University Hospital ( n = 107) were surveyed. LON was defined as an absolute neutrophil count <1500 cells/μl, occurring four weeks to two years following rituximab treatment, or later during sustained B-cell depletion. Serum levels of B-cell-related cytokines and growth factors of the myeloid lineage were determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results Thirty-two patients (29.9%) developed LON after a median time of 201.5 days. Thirteen patients were admitted to the hospital; 10 due to fever. Three patients developed critical conditions. BAFF levels increased from baseline (median: 0.62 ng/ml) to the post-treatment evaluation (median: 1.16 ng/ml; p < 0.001); post-treatment levels were higher in the LON group ( p = 0.021). APRIL levels were higher in the LON group both at baseline (median: 1.54 versus 1.15 ng/ml; p = 0.027) and post-treatment (median: 2.39 versus 1.11 ng/ml; p = 0.011). IL-6 and GM-CSF levels decreased in the non-LON group ( p < 0.001), but not in LON patients. High baseline disease activity predicted LON development (OR: 4.1; 95% CI: 1.1-15.2 for SLEDAI-2K > 8). No association with neutropenia prior to rituximab treatment was documented. Conclusion Post-rituximab LON was a common complication. Although the phenomenon was predominantly self-limiting, several patients developed severe conditions. Distinct roles of BAFF and APRIL are implicated: BAFF may contribute to LON development, whereas high APRIL levels may be predictive. Rituximab-treated SLE patients should be monitored for neutrophil counts, fever and infections.

Objective: In disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had achieved sustained low disease activity (a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate of ≤3.2 at both week 40 and week 52) after 1 year of treatment with certolizumab pegol (CZP) at a standard dose (200 mg every 2 weeks plus optimized methotrexate [MTX]), we evaluated whether continuation of CZP treatment at a standard dose or at a reduced frequency (200 mg every 4 weeks plus MTX) was superior to stopping CZP (placebo plus MTX) in maintaining low disease activity for 1 additional year., Methods: A total of 293 patients from period 1 of our study were re-randomized 2:3:2 in period 2 to CZP at a standard dose (n = 84), CZP at a reduced frequency (n = 127), or placebo plus MTX (CZP stopped) (n = 82). The primary end point was the percentage of patients who maintained low disease activity throughout weeks 52-104 without flares. We used a hierarchical testing scheme, comparing CZP at a standard dose with CZP stopped. If P < 0.05 was achieved, then CZP at a reduced frequency was compared with CZP stopped (nonresponder imputation)., Results: The 293 patients from period 1 represented 36% fewer patients than projected, yielding a smaller number of patients eligible for period 2. Higher proportions of patients treated with the standard and reduced frequency regimens maintained low disease activity than those who had stopped CZP (48.8% and 53.2%, respectively, versus 39.2% [P = 0.112 and P = 0.041, respectively; nominal P value, first hierarchical test not significant]). Similar trends were observed for radiographic nonprogression (change from baseline of ≤0.5 in modified Sharp/van der Heijde score; 79.2% and 77.9% of patients, respectively, versus 70.3%) and normative physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score of ≤0.5; 71.4% and 70.6% of patients, respectively, versus 57.0%). Safety profiles were similar between all groups, with no new safety signals identified for continuing CZP to week 104. No deaths were reported., Conclusion: The study failed to meet its primary end point. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the standard and reduced frequency doses of CZP plus MTX; both controlled RA more effectively than stopping CZP., (© 2017 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs., Methods: Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N = 210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N = 159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib + MTX, N = 215). PROs included the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models., Results: Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib + MTX at week 52., Conclusions: In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359 . Registered on 18 October 2012.

Objectives: To update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained., Results: The RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or 'spacing' was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B)., Conclusions: This systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JS: Amgen, Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Merck-Serono, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Samsung, UCB. DvdH: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, 5, Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV. JWB: Roche, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, UCB. GB: UCB, AbbVie, BMS, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche. MD, AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD. RvV: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Biotest, Janssen, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Vertex. RL: AbbVie, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB, Pfizer, Ablynx, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen (formerly Centocor), Galapagos, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Merck, TiGenix, Rheumatology Consultancy BV., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the 2016 update of the recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: An SLR for the period between 2013 and 2016 was undertaken to assess the efficacy of glucocorticoids (GCs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (tofacitinib and baricitinib) in randomised clinical trials., Results: For GCs, four studies were included in the SLR. Patients without poor prognostic factors experienced benefit when GCs were added to methotrexate (MTX). Lower doses of GCs were similar to higher doses. For csDMARDs, two new studies comparing MTX monotherapy with combination csDMARD were included in the SLR. In the tREACH trial at the end of 12 months no difference between the groups in disease activity, functional ability and radiographic progression was seen, using principles of tight control (treat-to-target). In the CareRA trial, combination therapy with csDMARDs was not superior to MTX monotherapy and monotherapy was better tolerated.For tsDMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib were shown to be more effective than placebo (MTX) in different patient populations., Conclusions: Addition of GCs to csDMARD therapy may be beneficial but the benefits should be balanced against the risk of toxicity. Under tight control conditions MTX monotherapy is not less effective than combination csDMARDs, but better tolerated. Tofacitinib and baricitinib are efficacious in patients with RA, including those with refractory disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: Since the 2007 recommendations for the management of early arthritis have been presented, considerable research has been published in the field of early arthritis, mandating an update of the 2007 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of early arthritis., Methods: In accordance with the 2014 EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, the expert committee pursued an approach that was based on evidence in the literature and on expert opinion. The committee involved 20 rheumatologists, 2 patients and 1 healthcare professional representing 12 European countries. The group defined the focus of the expert committee and target population, formulated a definition of 'management' and selected the research questions. A systematic literature research (SLR) was performed by two fellows with the help of a skilled librarian. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the SLR. For each recommendation, the categories of evidence were identified, the strength of recommendations was derived and the level of agreement was determined through a voting process., Results: The updated recommendations comprise 3 overarching principles and 12 recommendations for managing early arthritis. The selected statements involve the recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognostication, treatment (information, education, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions), monitoring and strategy. Eighteen items were identified as relevant for future research., Conclusions: These recommendations provide rheumatologists, general practitioners, healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders with an updated EULAR consensus on the entire management of early arthritis., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All the participants in this initiative have disclosed conflict of interest. The individual declaration of conflict of interest is available on demand at the European League Against Rheumatism secretariat and is summarised below: BC has received honoraria from BMS, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi and UCB, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB. RL has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, TiGenix, UCB. RL is director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV. CID has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB. DA has received honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Centocor, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medac, Merck, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. JMA-G has received honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB, and research grants from MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. GRB has received honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB. CC has received speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Angellini, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Egis, MSD, Pfizer, Richter, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Teva, UCB, Zentiva. RC has received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer and Amgen. MD has received honorarium fees for participating at advisory boards or symposia organised by Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, BMS. His department has received research grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, BMS. PE has provided expert advice for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, UCB. GF has received honoraria from AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Roche, Janssen, Eli Lilly, UCB and research grants from Roche, MSD. JF has received unrestricted research grants or acted as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celltrion, Celgene, Hospira, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, UCB. KR has received honoraria from AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche and Janssen and research grants from AbbVie. JSS has received grants for his institution from AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and has provided expert advice to and/or had speaking engagements for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celltrion, GSK, ILTOO, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB. ZS has received consultant and speakers fees from AbbVie, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pfizer. TKK has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Hospira, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB. RvV has received research support and grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, and honoraria for consultancy from AbbVie, Biotest, BMS, Celgene, Crescendo, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Vertex., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: A competing interests statement of all authors is attached as online supplementary material., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: To assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA., Methods: Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool., Results: Twenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)-without differences across bDMARDs-a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5)., Conclusions: These findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JS, Amgen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, Merck-Serono, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Samsung, UCB. DvdH, AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, 5, Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV. MD, AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD. RvV, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Biotest, Janssen, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Vertex. JWB, Roche, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and UCB. GB, UCB, 2, AbbVie, BMS, Hexal, Janssen, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Medimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche. RL, AbbVie, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB, Pfizer, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen (formerly Centocor), Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Merck, TiGenix, Rheumatology Consultancy BV., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: New targeted therapies and improved treatment strategies have dramatically improved the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unknown whether different early aggressive interventions can induce stable remission or a low-active disease state that can be maintained with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy, and whether they differ in efficacy and safety. The Nordic Rheumatic Diseases Strategy Trials And Registries (NORD-STAR) study will assess and compare (1) the proportion of patients who achieve remission in a head-to-head comparison between csDMARD plus glucocorticoid therapy and three different biological DMARD (bDMARD) therapies with different modes of action and (2) two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to first-line therapy., Methods/design: In a pragmatic, 80-160-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded, phase 4 study, 800 patients with early RA (symptom duration less than 24 months) are randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of four different treatment arms: (1) aggressive csDMARD therapy with methotrexate + sulphasalazine + hydroxychloroquine + i.a. glucocorticoids (arm 1A) or methotrexate + prednisolone p.o. (arm 1B), (2) methotrexate + certolizumab-pegol, (3) methotrexate + abatacept, or (4) methotrexate + tocilizumab. The primary clinical endpoint is the proportion of patients reaching Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission at week 24. Patients in stable remission over 24 consecutive weeks enter part 2 of the study earliest after 48 weeks. Patients not achieving sustained CDAI remission over 24 consecutive weeks, exit the study after 80 weeks. In part 2, patients are re-randomized to two different de-escalation strategies, either immediate or delayed (after 24 weeks) tapering, followed by cessation of study medication. All patients remain on stable doses of methotrexate. The primary clinical endpoint in part 2 is the proportion of patients in remission (CDAI ≤2.8) 24 weeks after initiating treatment de-escalation. Radiographic assessment will be performed regularly throughout the trial, and blood and urine samples will be stored in a biobank for later biomarker analyses., Discussion: NORD-STAR is the first investigator-initiated, randomized, early RA trial to compare (1) csDMARD and three different bDMARD therapies head to head and (2) two different de-escalation strategies. The trial has the potential to identify which treatment strategy to apply in early RA to achieve the best possible outcomes for both patients and society., Trial Registration: NCT01491815 and NCT02466581 . Registered on 8 December 2011 and May 2015, respectively. EudraCT: 2011-004720-35.

Objectives: To investigate changes in neutrophil count and occurrences of infection in RA patients treated with the IL-6 receptor-α inhibitor tocilizumab (TCZ)., Methods: Data were pooled from patients who received i.v. TCZ (4 mg/kg + MTX, 8 mg/kg ± DMARDs, 10 mg/kg) or placebo + DMARDs in phase 3/4 clinical trials, long-term extensions or a pharmacology study. Neutrophil counts were measured routinely according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grades; TCZ dosing was adjusted if necessary. Covariates associated with decreased neutrophil counts were assessed with multivariate regression analysis. Infection rates within 30 days of neutrophil count changes were calculated per 100 patient-years of TCZ exposure., Results: In placebo-controlled parts of trials, more TCZ-treated than placebo-treated patients had grade 1/2 or 3/4 neutrophil counts (TCZ: 28.2%/3.1%; placebo: 8.9%/0.2%). In placebo-controlled trials + long-term extensions, 4171 patients provided 16204.8 patient-years of TCZ exposure. Neutrophil counts decreased through week 6 from baseline [mean ( s . d .) change, -2.17 (2.16) × 10 9 /l) and remained stable thereafter. Rates (95% CI) of serious infections within 30 days of normal [4.66 (4.31, 5.03)], grade 1/2 [2.48 (1.79, 3.34)] and 3/4 [2.77 (0.34, 10.01)] neutrophil counts were similar. Baseline neutrophil count <2 × 10 9 /l and female gender were associated with grade 3/4 neutrophil counts [odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 19.02 (6.76, 53.52), 2.55 (1.40, 4.66)]. Patients who stopped TCZ in response to decreased neutrophil count returned more quickly to normal levels than patients who reduced or continued their dose., Conclusion: Decreases in neutrophil counts in patients taking TCZ do not appear to be associated with serious infections and are normalized by current risk mitigation guidelines., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To assess the effects of education, guideline development, and individualized treatment advice on rheumatologist adherence to tight control-based treatment and biological dose optimization in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthropathy (SpA) patients., Method: This pilot study, among two rheumatologists and two specialized nurses in a general hospital, combined education, feedback, local guideline development, and individualized treatment advice. Outcomes (baseline and 1 year post-intervention) were the percentage of patients with a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) measured during the visit, mean DAS28/BASDAI, and the percentage of patients using a reduced biological dose. DAS28 outcomes only applied to RA and PsA patients, BASDAI outcomes only applied to SpA patients whereas outcomes on biological dose applied to all patients., Results: A total of 232 patients (67% RA, 15% PsA, 18% SpA; 58% female, mean age 56 ± 15 years) were included in the study. The percentage of DAS28 and BASDAI measurements performed increased after the intervention [DAS28 15-51%, odds ratio (OR) 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-5.5; BASDAI 23-50%, OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-5.5], with mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores remaining similar (DAS28: mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5; BASDAI: mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -1.8 to 1.9). Use of a reduced biological dose increased from 10% to 61% (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.4-6.5)., Conclusions: A multicomponent intervention strategy aimed at rheumatologists can lead to improved adherence to tight control-based treatment and a reduction in the use of biologicals in RA, SpA, and PsA patients.

Objective: Several aspects of rituximab (RTX) retreatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) need to be further elucidated. The aim of this study was to describe the effect of repeated courses of RTX on disease activity and to compare 2 retreatment strategies, fixed-interval versus on-flare retreatment, in a large international, observational, collaborative study., Methods: In the first analysis, patients with RA who received at least 4 cycles with RTX were included. In the second analysis, patients who received at least 1 RTX retreatment and for whom information about the strategy for retreatment was available were identified. Two retreatment strategies (fixed-interval vs on-flare) were compared by fitting-adjusted, mixed-effects models of 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) over time for first and second retreatment., Results: A total of 1530 patients met the eligibility criteria for the first analysis. Significant reductions of mean DAS28 between the starts of subsequent treatment cycles were observed (at start of first treatment cycle: 5.5; second: 4.3; third: 3.8; and fourth: 3.5), suggesting improved response after each additional cycle (p < 0.0001 for all pairwise comparisons). A total of 800 patients qualified for the second analysis: 616 were retreated on flare and 184 at fixed interval. For the first retreatment, the fixed-interval retreatment group yielded significantly better results than the on-flare group (estimated marginal mean DAS28 = 3.8, 95% CI 3.6-4.1 vs 4.6, 95% CI 4.5-4.7, p < 0.0001). Similar results were found for the second retreatment., Conclusion: Repeated treatment with RTX leads to further clinical improvement after the first course of RTX. A fixed-interval retreatment strategy seems to be more effective than on-flare retreatment.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP)+dose-optimised methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo (PBO)+dose-optimised MTX in inducing and sustaining clinical remission in DMARD-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe, active, progressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with poor prognostic factors over 52 weeks., Methods: DMARD-naïve patients with ≤1 year of active RA were randomised (3:1) in a double-blind manner to CZP (400 mg Weeks 0, 2, 4, then 200 mg Q2W to Week 52)+MTX or PBO+MTX (the mean optimised-MTX dose=21 and 22 mg/week, respectively). Sustained remission (sREM) and sustained low disease activity (sLDA; DAS28(ESR)<2.6 and DAS28(ESR)≤3.2, respectively, at both Weeks 40 and 52) were the primary and secondary endpoints., Results: Patients were randomised to CZP+MTX (n=660) and PBO+MTX (n=219). At Week 52, significantly more patients assigned to CZP+MTX compared with PBO+MTX achieved sREM (28.9% vs 15.0%, p<0.001) and sLDA (43.8% vs 28.6%, p<0.001). Inhibition of radiographic progression and improvements in physical functioning were significantly greater for CZP+MTX versus PBO+MTX (van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (mTSS) mean absolute change from baseline (CFB): 0.2 vs 1.8, p<0.001, rate of mTSS non-progressors: 70.3% vs 49.7%, p<0.001; least squares (LS) mean CFB in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI): -1.00 vs -0.82, p<0.001). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was similar between treatment groups. Infection was the most frequent AE, with higher incidence for CZP+MTX (71.8/100 patient-years (PY)) versus PBO+MTX (52.7/100 PY); the rate of serious infection was similar between CZP+MTX (3.3/100 PY) and PBO+MTX (3.7/100 PY)., Conclusions: CZP+dose-optimised MTX treatment of DMARD-naïve early RA resulted in significantly more patients achieving sREM and sLDA, improved physical function and inhibited structural damage compared with PBO+dose-optimised MTX., Trial Registration Number: NCT01519791., Competing Interests: PE received consultancy and speaker's fee from Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Schering-Plough, Novartis and Samsung. COBIII received consultancy fees from UCB Pharma. GRB received consultancy fees from AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB Pharma. DEF received research grants from Abbott, Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, NIH, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and UCB Pharma; consultancy fees from Abbott, Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen IDEC, Janssen, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, NIH, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and UCB Pharma and other fees from Abbott, Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, IDEC, Janssen, Gilead, NIH, Roche/Genentech, Abbott, Actelion and UCB Pharma. XM received research grants from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Roche and consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma and Sanofi-Aventis. DvdH received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Augurex, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Chugai, Covagen, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novo-Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma and Vertex; research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Augurex, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Chugai, Covagen, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novo-Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma and Vertex and is Director of Imaging at Rheumatology BV. RvV received research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche and UCB Pharma and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma and Vertex. CA is an employee of UCB Pharma. IM is an employee of UCB Pharma. OP is an employee of UCB Pharma. DT is an employee of UCB Pharma. BV is an employee of UCB Pharma. MEW received research grants from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience and UCB Pharma and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli-Lilly, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB Pharma., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: To compare the value that rheumatologists across Europe attach to patients' preferences and economic aspects when choosing treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: In a discrete choice experiment, European rheumatologists chose between two hypothetical drug treatments for a patient with moderate disease activity. Treatments differed in five attributes: efficacy (improvement and achieved state on disease activity), safety (probability of serious adverse events), patient's preference (level of agreement), medication costs and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)). A Bayesian efficient design defined 14 choice sets, and a random parameter logit model was used to estimate relative preferences for rheumatologists across countries. Cluster analyses and latent class models were applied to understand preference patterns across countries and among individual rheumatologists., Results: Responses of 559 rheumatologists from 12 European countries were included in the analysis (49% females, mean age 48 years). In all countries, efficacy dominated treatment decisions followed by economic considerations and patients' preferences. Across countries, rheumatologists avoided selecting a treatment that patients disliked. Latent class models revealed four respondent profiles: one traded off all attributes except safety, and the remaining three classes disregarded ICER. Among individual rheumatologists, 57% disregarded ICER and these were more likely from Italy, Romania, Portugal or France, whereas 43% disregarded uncommon/rare side effects and were more likely from Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden or UK., Conclusions: Overall, European rheumatologists are willing to trade between treatment efficacy, patients' treatment preferences and economic considerations. However, the degree of trade-off differs between countries and among individuals., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: To date, head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs within the same class, including TNF inhibitors, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different TNF inhibitors and to assess the efficacy and safety of switching to the other TNF inhibitor without a washout period after insufficient primary response to the first TNF inhibitor at week 12., Methods: In this 104-week, randomised, single-blind (double-blind until week 12 and investigator blind thereafter), parallel-group, head-to-head superiority study (EXXELERATE), eligible patients from 151 centres worldwide were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis at screening, as defined by the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria, and had prognostic factors for severe disease progression, including a positive rheumatoid factor, or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody result, or both. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system with no stratification to receive certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate or adalimumab plus methotrexate. All study staff were kept masked throughout the study and participants were masked until week 12. At week 12, patients were classified as responders (by either achieving low disease activity [LDA] according to Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≤3·2 or DAS28-ESR reduction ≥1·2 from baseline) or as non-responders. Non-responders to the first TNF inhibitor to which they were randomised were switched to the other TNF inhibitor with no washout period. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and LDA at week 104 (week 12 non-responders were considered LDA non-responders). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500278., Findings: Between Dec 14, 2011, and Nov 11, 2013, 1488 patients were screened of whom 915 were randomly assigned; 457 to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and 458 to adalimumab plus methotrexate. No statistically significant difference was observed in ACR20 response at week 12 (314 [69%] of 454 patients and 324 [71%] of 454 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·90 [95% CI 0·67-1·20]; p=0·467) or DAS28-ESR LDA at week 104 (161 [35%] of 454 patients and 152 [33%] of 454 patients; OR 1·09 [0·82-1·45]; p=0·532) between certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and adalimumab plus methotrexate, respectively. At week 12, 65 non-responders to certolizumab pegol were switched to adalimumab and 57 non-responders to adalimumab were switched to certolizumab pegol; 33 (58%) of 57 patients switching to certolizumab pegol and 40 (62%) of 65 patients switching to adalimumab responded 12 weeks later by achieving LDA or a DAS28-ESR reduction 1·2 or greater. 389 [75%] of 516 patients who received certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and 386 [74%] of 523 patients who received adalimumab plus methotrexate reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Three deaths (1%) occurred in each group. No serious infection events were reported in the 70-day period after treatment switch., Interpretation: These results show that certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is not superior to adalimumab plus methotrexate. The data also show the clinical benefit and safety of switching to a second TNF inhibitor without a washout period after primary failure to a first TNF inhibitor., Funding: UCB Pharma., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Improvements in the control of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have led to a substantial change in the clinical outcomes of patients during the last 30 years. Current treatment can lead to sustained remission in some patients raising questions about the optimal management strategies in this subgroup of patients. Today, tapering of DMARDs and even their discontinuation appears as an interesting concept for achieving a more tailored and dynamic treatment approach of RA, especially in patients, who achieved full disease control by DMARD treatment. In this review article, current developments of DMARD tapering are discussed. The article provides an overview of existing studies on this topic and addresses new strategies to reach drug-free remission. Furthermore, concepts for defining patients eligible for DMARD tapering are described and potential future strategies in using biomarkers in predicting the risk for disease relapse after initiation of DMARD tapering are addressed. These findings are finally considered in light of the vision to achieve cure as an ultimate goal in patients with RA achieving full control of inflammation., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) with and without synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) in a large observational study., Methods: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TCZ who had a baseline visit and information on concomitant sDMARDs were included. According to baseline data, patients were considered as taking TCZ as monotherapy or combination with sDMARDs. Main study outcomes were the change of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and TCZ retention. The prescription of TCZ as monotherapy was analysed using logistic regression. CDAI change was analysed with a mixed-effects model for longitudinal data. TCZ retention was analysed with a stratified extended Cox model., Results: Multiple-adjusted analysis suggests that prescription of TCZ as monotherapy varied according to age, corticosteroid use, country of the registry and year of treatment initiation. The change of disease activity assessed by CDAI as well as the likelihood to be in remission were not significantly different whether TCZ was used as monotherapy or in combination with sDMARDs in a covariate-adjusted analysis. Estimates for unadjusted median TCZ retention were 2.3 years (95% CI 1.8 to 2.7) for monotherapy and 3.7 years (lower 95% CI limit 3.1, upper limit not estimable) for combination therapies. In a covariate-adjusted analysis, TCZ retention was also reduced when used as monotherapy, with an increasing difference between mono and combination therapy over time after 1.5 years (p=0.002)., Conclusions: TCZ with or without concomitant sDMARDs resulted in comparable clinical response as assessed by CDAI change, but TCZ retention was shorter under monotherapy of TCZ., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: To compare work-loss in RA patients starting their first biologic with high vs moderate disease activity., Methods: We identified all RA patients aged 20-63 years in the Swedish Biologics Register who started their first biologic 2007-09 with high disease activity (DAS28 >5.1; n = 868) or moderate disease activity (DAS28 3.2-5.1; n = 854). Work days lost, defined as sick leave and disability pension days from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, were assessed over 5 years after first bio-start. We estimated between-group mean differences adjusted for age, sex, calendar year, education level, disease duration, comorbidities and work-loss the month before bio-start., Results: During 5 years after anti-TNF start, mean monthly work days lost declined from 16.0 to 9.2 (42%; P < 0.001) in patients with high disease activity at baseline and from 12.0 to 7.2 (40%; P < 0.001) in patients with moderate disease activity, with no between-group difference (adjusted mean difference 0.81; 95% CI - 0.44, 2.05). Accumulated 5-year work-loss was, however, higher in the high activity group (724 vs 548 days; adjusted mean difference 70; 95% CI 20, 120), but after stratification on baseline disability pension status, no differences in accumulated work-loss were detected., Conclusion: Substantial work-loss was seen in both patients with high and patients with moderate disease activity at anti-TNF start, with a 5-year decline in mean monthly work days lost by ∼40% in both groups and no between-group difference. Accumulated work-loss over 5 years was higher in the high-activity group, which may be explained by differences in baseline disability pension status., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights., Objective: To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion., Methods: A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived., Results: The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10)., Conclusions: The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009-2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations., Methods: Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014., Results: Of 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care., Conclusions: The current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: To explore the safety and tolerability of atacicept in combination with rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving rituximab re-treatment., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial, 2 infusions (1,000 mg per infusion) of intravenous rituximab, given 2 weeks apart, were followed by once-weekly subcutaneous injections of 150 mg atacicept or placebo for 25 weeks. Primary end points were the nature, incidence, and severity of adverse events (AEs). Secondary end points were the effects on peripheral blood B cells, disease activity biomarkers, and American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20), 50% (ACR50), and 70% (ACR70) response rates., Results: Eighteen patients were randomized to receive atacicept and 9 to receive placebo. AEs occurred in 17 atacicept-treated patients (94.4%) and in all 9 placebo-treated patients (100%). There were no infection-related serious adverse events. Hypersensitivity and injection site reactions were more common, and more patients withdrew due to AEs, in the atacicept group. Median reductions in Ig levels from baseline to week 32 were greater with atacicept (median change in IgG -31.2%, IgM -60.9%, and IgA -56.4%) than with placebo (median change in IgG -4.4%, IgM -15.9%, and IgA -8.2%). Peripheral B cell numbers remained low in all patients after rituximab-mediated B cell depletion, limiting comparison of time to recovery between treatment groups. There were no between-group differences in ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates., Conclusion: In this exploratory trial, atacicept in combination with rituximab showed no new safety issues. Peripheral B cell counts remained too low to determine whether atacicept delayed B cell re-expansion following rituximab-mediated depletion. Despite clear biologic effects, adding atacicept to rituximab in patients with active RA was not associated with clinical benefit., (© 2015 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: Switching to a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) after discontinuation of a first in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common strategy. The reason for the switch from the first TNFi could potentially influence the response to therapy. Data on direct comparisons between TNFi after switching are limited., Methods: The national Swedish register was used. RA patients who switched to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab) after failure of a TNFi as first-ever biologic were identified. Effectiveness of treatment was compared across the three drugs according to the first TNFi used, the reason for discontinuing and the drug survival. Drug survival across TNFi used as second biologic was compared., Results: Half of all patients starting infliximab, adalimumab or etanercept during the period 2005-2012 discontinued treatment for various reasons. Of these patients, a third switched within 2 months to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab). Around 35% of all patients achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months. Regarding the switching strategy, best results were observed among patients who switched from infliximab to etanercept because of (secondary) inefficacy. Etanercept as second TNFi was associated with longer drug survival compared with infliximab., Conclusions: Switching to a second TNFi after the failure of the first may lead to good clinical results. The inter-drug differences in drug survival on the second TNFi mirror those reported previously for the first TNFi, suggesting that these differences are not solely due to channelling bias., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: Evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who have failed to respond to treatment with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is limited. The aim of this study was to describe the effectiveness and survival-on-drug of CZP in a real-life setting, both in TNFi-naïve patients and in patients who had previously failed TNFis, and in relation to disease activity at baseline., Method: The national Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register (SRQ) was used to identify patients with RA starting treatment with CZP between 2009 and 2013. The effectiveness of treatment was assessed using the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), measures of remission, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response during 0-6 months from start of treatment, and survival-on-drug during the first 30 months., Results: A total of 945 RA patients started treatment with CZP. Of these, 540 (57.1%) received CZP as the first biological treatment, 215 (23%) had failed one previous TNFi, and 190 (20%) had failed at least two TNFis. Overall, 71% achieved at least a EULAR moderate response and 38% had a EULAR good response at 6 months from baseline. TNFi-naïve patients achieved significantly better results and had better survival-on-drug compared to patients who had failed previous TNFis. Around 20% of patients who had not responded to two or more prior TNFis achieved EULAR good response to therapy and a similar percentage achieved remission. Patients who had high baseline disease activity had a higher risk of discontinuing treatment compared to those without high disease activity., Conclusions: In this real-life RA cohort, CZP was associated with significant clinical improvement. The effectiveness and survival-on-drug vary markedly depending on the line of treatment.

Objectives: Tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A proportion of patients achieve low disease activity using a lower than registered starting dose. We investigated the feasibility of dose reduction to 4 mg/kg in patients who reached low disease activity at the registered dose of 8 mg/kg., Methods: In this retrospective study, data were collected of 22 patients successfully treated with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg for about 6 months and tapered to 4 mg/kg because of low disease activity. In case of loss of disease control, the dose could be increased again to 8 mg/kg. The percentage of patients with successful dose reduction and difference in DAS28 was described., Results: Mean DAS28 at time of dose reduction was 2.3 (SD 0.9). After 3 and 6 months follow-up, 77% (95% CI 54-91) and 55% (95% CI 32-76) of patients had successfully reduced the dose without losing disease control, respectively. DAS28 at 3 and 6 months was somewhat higher than baseline, 2.7 (SD 1.2) and 2.5 (SD 1.0) respectively. All patients who experienced worsening of disease activity after dose reduction regained low disease activity after dose escalation., Conclusions: Dose reduction of tocilizumab seems feasible in a substantial proportion of patients. Dose escalation after flare was effective in all patients.

Objectives: We aimed to describe patterns of disease activity during infliximab plus methotrexate (MTX) treatment and explore C-reactive protein (CRP) as a potential marker of early response., Methods: REMARK was a phase IV, open-label, observational study of infliximab-naïve adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received infliximab 3 mg/kg plus MTX for 14 weeks. Treatment response was evaluated in 3 subgroups: patients with <1 year disease duration who were TNF-inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve, patients with ≥ 1 year disease duration who were TNFi-naïve, and patients who had previous TNFi failure or intolerance. In post hoc analyses, CRP kinetic profiles were analysed by EULAR response (good, moderate, non-response) in REMARK and in an independent replication with data from the ASPIRE study., Results: In the efficacy-evaluable population (n=662), median 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) improved from baseline to Week 14 (5.2 vs. 3.6, p<0.0001). Regardless of disease history subgroup, most patients had good or moderate EULAR responses at Weeks 2 (64.9%), 6 (74.1%), and 14 (73.6%). DAS28 and its components did not differ across patient subgroups. Disease flare occurred in 16.2% of patients. CRP levels declined markedly at Week 2, but patients who were EULAR non-responders at Week 14 showed a CRP rebound at Weeks 6 and 14. This CRP pattern was independently replicated in data from ASPIRE. Adverse events were consistent with the known risk profile of infliximab., Conclusions: Infliximab plus MTX treatment in patients with RA rapidly diminished disease activity. A unique pattern of CRP rebound was found in non-responders early in treatment.

Objective: To assess the longterm safety and efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Patient data were from 5 randomized controlled TCZ trials (n = 4211), their open-label extension phases (n = 3512), and a drug interaction study (n = 23). All randomly assigned patients, regardless of previous RA treatment, were analyzed. Measures of safety included number of adverse events (AE), serious AE (SAE), AE leading to treatment discontinuation, laboratory tests, and deaths. Efficacy measures included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses, tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), ACR core set components, and low disease activity (LDA) or Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) remission. ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) disease remission was a posthoc exploratory analysis., Results: Total duration of observation was 12,293 patient-years (PY). No new safety signals were identified; infections were the most common AE and SAE. The rate of serious infections was 4.5/100 PY. Improvements from baseline in clinical efficacy, measured as ACR20/50/70 responses, TJC, SJC, ACR core set components, and LDA and DAS28 remission, were generally sustained through at least 216 weeks of followup. ACR/EULAR disease remission was attained by 16.5% (Boolean) and 22.7% (index) of patients at Week 216., Conclusion: TCZ has to date been studied for up to 4.6 years (240 weeks) of treatment in patients with RA. Our analysis reveals a longer-term safety profile consistent with previous observations, no new safety signals, and durable efficacy of TCZ in a large clinical trial program.

Background: Roughly a third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological treatments receive them as monotherapy. Tocilizumab--an inhibitor of interleukin 6 receptor signalling--has been studied as monotherapy in several clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab monotherapy compared with adalimumab monotherapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: We did this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 4 superiority study in 76 centres in 15 countries in North and South America, Australasia, and Europe. We enrolled patients who were aged at least 18 years, had severe rheumatoid arthritis for 6 months or more, and were intolerant to methotrexate or were inappropriate for continued methotrexate treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of four) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg per kg bodyweight intravenously every 4 weeks plus placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks or adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks plus placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. Investigators, patients, and sponsor personnel were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was change in disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28) from baseline to week 24. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01119859., Findings: We screened 452 patients and enrolled 326 patients. The intention-to-treat population contained 325 patients (163 assigned to tocilizumab, 162 assigned to adalimumab). Week 24 mean change from baseline in DAS28 was significantly greater in the tocilizumab group (-3·3) than in the adalimumab group (-1·8) patients (difference -1·5, 95% CI -1·8 to -1·1; p<0·0001). 16 of 162 (10%) patients in the adalimumab group versus 19 of 162 (12%) in the tocilizumab group had serious adverse events. More patients in the tocilizumab group than in the adalimumab group had increased LDL-cholesterol, increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations, and reduced platelet and neutrophil counts., Interpretation: Tocilizumab monotherapy was superior to adalimumab monotherapy for reduction of signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients for whom methotrexate was deemed inappropriate. The adverse event profiles of tocilizumab and adalimumab were consistent with previous findings., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize and compare responses in patients who had failed one tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor when switching to another TNF inhibitor or rituximab (RTX)., Methods: The Stockholm TNF follow-up registry (STURE) was used. Treatment results at 6 months were analysed by (i) the biologic used, (ii) the type of anti-TNF switch, and (iii) the reason for discontinuation (inefficacy or intolerance)., Results: A total of 328 patients who failed an anti-TNF switched to an alternative biologic, 69 to RTX, 161 to an anti-TNF monoclonal antibody (mAb), and 98 to etanercept (ETA). Significant reductions in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) at 6 months were observed for all groups. The mean ± SD reduction in DAS28 was 1.70 ± 1.18 for RTX, 1.40 ± 1.51 for ETA, and 0.67 ± 1.36 for mAb, the difference being statistically significant between RTX and mAb (p < 0.0001). For patients who had failed ETA, RTX led to significantly greater DAS28 reductions than mAb (p = 0.01). When the reason for discontinuation of the previous anti-TNF was intolerance or secondary inefficacy, RTX led to significantly greater DAS28 reduction compared to mAb and ETA (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively)., Conclusions: In this observational cohort, patients who failed one anti-TNF had better overall results when treated with RTX than with a subsequent anti-TNF mAb. Having failed ETA, RTX yielded greater DAS28 reductions and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses than mAb. The advantage of RTX was most clearly seen in patients who had failed anti-TNF because of intolerance or secondary inefficacy.

Objective: To study the efficacy of anakinra versus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in refractory adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD)., Methods: In a 24-week study, 22 patients with AOSD taking prednisolone ≥ 10 mg/day received anakinra (n = 12) or DMARD (n = 10). The primary endpoint was achievement of remission., Results: At 8 and 24 weeks, 7/12 and 6/12 receiving anakinra and 5/10 and 2/10 receiving DMARD achieved remission. Anakinra induced greater improvement in physical health measured by Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36; p < 0.011). During an open-label extension (OLE) of 28 weeks, 7/14 patients taking anakinra and 2/3 taking DMARD were in remission., Conclusion: Anakinra induced more beneficial responses than DMARD in patients with AOSD and was favored in the OLE phase. (ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration NCT01033656).

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2-year administration of certolizumab pegol (CZP) + MTX in patients with active RA., Methods: Patients completing 52 weeks in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention of Structural Damage (RAPID) 1 trial (52-week completers), or withdrawing at week 16 due to lack of ACR20 response were eligible for open-label treatment (CZP 400 mg every other week + MTX). After 2 years' treatment, HAQ-Disability Index response, ACR20/50/70 responses, DAS-28 and radiographic progression were assessed in 52-week completers. ACR20/50/70 and DAS-28 were also calculated for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Adverse events were assessed in patients who received one or more CZP doses during the study., Results: At week 100, 88.9% (n = 216) of 52-week completers who originally received CZP 200 mg + MTX and open-label treatment remained in the study. In this group, ACR20/50/70 at week 100 were 68.2, 55.2 and 35.6%, respectively. HAQ-DI and DAS-28 improvements were sustained throughout the open-label extension (mean change -0.79 and -3.5 at week 100, respectively). A total of 46.7% (n = 113) of CZP 200 mg + MTX 52-week completers achieved low disease activity by week 100. Inhibition of radiographic progression was maintained. Similar findings were observed in 52-week completers who originally received CZP 400 mg + MTX and in the ITT population. Rates of serious infection or malignancies did not increase over time and no new safety signals were observed., Conclusion: CZP + MTX provided sustained, 2-year inhibition of radiographic progression and sustained improvements in RA clinical signs and symptoms, with no new safety signals observed in patients who completed 2 years of treatment., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00175877.

Objectives: This project was undertaken to assess the risk of malignancy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in clinical practice, as recorded in prospective, observational studies., Methods: The authors undertook comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and American College of Rheumatology, European League against Rheumatism and British Society for Rheumatology conference abstracts according to a prespecified protocol., Results: The searches identified 2039 full-text papers and 1979 conference abstracts, of which 21 full texts and eight abstracts met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate for the risk of all-site malignancy from seven studies was 0.95 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.05). Two studies reported there was no evidence that longer exposure to TNFi agents increased the risk of malignancy. In patients with previous malignancies there was a higher risk of a new/recurring malignancy. This risk was not increased further by exposure to TNFi, although CI were wide. Results from four studies showed that patients treated with TNFi have a significantly increased risk of developing a non-melanoma skin cancer (1.45, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.76). In addition, patients are at an increased risk of developing melanoma, as the pooled estimate from two studies was 1.79 (95% CI 0.92 to 2.67). The pooled estimate for the risk of lymphoma was 1.11 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.51)., Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that TNFi treatments do not increase the risk of malignancy, particularly lymphoma. However, they do appear to increase the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma.

Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and biologic activity of atacicept in tumor necrosis factor antagonist-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom the response to methotrexate treatment was inadequate., Methods: In this phase II study, patients with active RA (n = 311) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo, atacicept 150 mg weekly with or without a 4-week loading period (twice-weekly dosing), or open-label adalimumab 40 mg every other week, for 25 weeks. The primary end point was 20% improvement in disease severity according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria, assessed using the C-reactive protein level (ACR20-CRP), at week 26. Secondary end points included additional assessments of efficacy, biologic activity, and safety., Results: The proportion of patients meeting the primary end point (ACR20-CRP response) did not differ significantly in the atacicept groups and the placebo group (46% in the placebo group, 45% in the atacicept loading group, and 58% in the atacicept nonloading group). In contrast, an ACR20-CRP response was observed in 71% of patients in the adalimumab group (P < 0.001 versus placebo). ACR50-CRP response rates were significantly higher in all active-treatment groups compared with placebo, but ACR70-CRP response rates were superior only in the adalimumab group. Atacicept treatment reduced the levels of serum IgG, IgA, and IgM rheumatoid factor and the levels of circulating mature B cells and plasma cells. The effects of treatment were similar with and without loading. Immunoglobulin levels returned toward baseline values during the treatment-free followup period (week 38). The most frequent adverse events associated with atacicept represented common illnesses. No serious infections occurred among patients treated with atacicept., Conclusion: The primary end point (ACR20-CRP response) was not met despite significant biologic effects of atacicept that were consistent with its proposed mechanism of action. Modest effects of atacicept were seen for some secondary efficacy end points. Treatment with atacicept raised no new safety concerns., (Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

The introduction of biologic therapies heralded a new era in the treatment for chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases of which rheumatoid arthritis is one of the most prevalent. From a scientific point of view, these therapies demonstrated that the targeting of individual cytokines or cell-surface markers is a very effective approach. For the physician, the appropriate selection of patients in whom these therapies should be initiated is critical, as is the even more contentious issue of whether these therapies can or should be discontinued in selected patients with excellent clinical responses. Whereas the former issue has been addressed in a large number of clinical trials and observational studies, the latter remains poorly investigated and is currently the subject of further study., (© 2011 The Association for the Publication of the Journal of Internal Medicine.)