Search

To assess efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of pegloticase plus methotrexate (MTX) versus pegloticase plus placebo cotreatment for uncontrolled gout in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.This study included adults with uncontrolled gout, defined as serum urate ≥7 mg/dl, oral urate-lowering therapy failure or intolerance, and presence of ongoing gout symptoms including ≥1 tophus, ≥2 flares in the past 12 months, or gouty arthritis. Key exclusion criteria included MTX contraindication, current immunosuppressant use, G6PDH deficiency, and estimated glomerular filtration rate40 ml/minute/1.73 mA total of 152 patients were randomized, 100 to receive pegloticase plus MTX, 52 to receive pegloticase plus placebo. Significantly higher treatment response occurred during month 6 in the MTX group versus the placebo group (71.0% [71 of 100 patients] versus 38.5% [20 of 52 patients], respectively; between-group difference 32.3% [95% confidence interval 16.3%, 48.3%]) (P 0.0001 for between-group difference). During the first 6 months of pegloticase plus MTX or pegloticase plus placebo treatment, 78 (81.3%) of 96 MTX patients versus 47 (95.9%) of 49 placebo patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE), most commonly gout flare (64 [66.7%] of 96 MTX patients and 34 [69.4%] of 49 placebo patients). Reports of AEs and serious AEs were comparable between groups, but the infusion reaction rate was considerably lower with MTX cotherapy (4.2% [4 of 96 MTX patients, including 1 patient who had anaphylaxis]) than with placebo cotherapy (30.6% [15 of 49 placebo patients, 0 who had anaphylaxis]) (P 0.001). Antidrug antibody positivity was also lower in the MTX group.MTX cotherapy markedly increased pegloticase response rate over placebo (71.0% versus 38.5%) during month 6 with no new safety signals. These findings verify higher treatment response rate, lower infusion reaction incidence, and lower immunogenicity when pegloticase is coadministered with MTX.

ObjectivesTo investigate temporal trends in incidence and severity of COVID-19 among patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) from the first wave through the initial Omicron wave.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating COVID-19 outcomes among patientswith SARD systematically identified to have confirmed COVID-19 from 1 March 2020 to 31 January 2022 at Mass General Brigham. We tabulated COVID-19 counts of total and severe cases (hospitalisations or deaths) and compared the proportion with severe COVID-19 by calendar period and by vaccination status. We used logistic regression to estimate the ORs for severe COVID-19 for each period compared with the early COVID-19 period (reference group).ResultsWe identified 1449 patients with SARD with COVID-19 (mean age 58.4 years, 75.2% female, 33.9% rheumatoid arthritis). There were 399 (28%) cases of severe COVID-19. The proportion of severe COVID-19 outcomes declined over calendar time (p for trend ConclusionsThe proportion of patients with SARD with severe COVID-19 has diminished since early in the pandemic, particularly during the most recent time periods, including the initial Omicron wave. Advances in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 may have improved outcomes among patients with SARD.

ObjectiveTo investigate temporal trends, severe outcomes, and rebound among systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) patients according to outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study investigating outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatments among SARD patients at Mass General Brigham (23/Jan/2022-30/May/2022). We identified SARS-CoV-2 infection by positive PCR or antigen test (index date=first positive test) and SARDs using diagnosis codes and immunomodulator prescription. Outpatient treatments were confirmed by medical record review. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death within 30 days following the index date. COVID-19 rebound was defined as documentation of negative then newly-positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. The association of any vs. no outpatient treatment with hospitalization/death was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsWe analyzed 704 SARD patients with COVID-19 (mean age 58.4 years, 76% female, 49% with rheumatoid arthritis). Treatment as outpatient increased over calendar time (pConclusionOutpatient treatment was strongly associated with lower odds of severe COVID-19 compared to no outpatient treatment. At least 8% of SARD patients experienced COVID-19 rebound. These findings highlight the importance of outpatient COVID-19 treatment for SARD patients and the need for further research on rebound.KEY MESSAGESWhat is already known on this topic?Previous studies suggest that monoclonal antibodies are an effective outpatient treatment option for patients at high-risk of severe COVID-19, including those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir are recently-authorized effective oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment options, but clinical trials were performed among the general population, mostly among unvaccinated and prior to Omicron viral variants.Oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatments may result in COVID-19 rebound, characterized by newly-positive COVID-19 testing and recurrent symptoms, but no studies have investigated rebound prevalence among SARD patients.What this study adds?This is one of the first studies investigating outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatments among SARD patients that includes oral options and quantifies the prevalence of COVID-19 rebound.Outpatient treatment was associated with 88% reduced odds of severe COVID-19 compared to no treatment.At least 8% of SARDs receiving oral outpatient treatment experienced COVID-19 rebound.How this study might affect research, practice, or policy?These results should encourage clinicians to prescribe and SARD patients to seek prompt outpatient COVID-19 treatment.This research provides an early estimate of the prevalence of COVID-19 rebound after oral outpatient treatment to quantify this risk to clinicians and SARD patients and encourage future research.

Objective Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are 1.5 times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) attributed to chronic inflammation. A decrease in inflammation in patients with RA is associated with increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. This study was undertaken to prospectively evaluate the changes in lipid levels among RA patients experiencing changes in inflammation and determine the association with concomitant temporal patterns in markers of myocardial injury. Methods A total of 196 patients were evaluated in a longitudinal RA cohort, with blood samples and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels measured annually. Patients were stratified based on whether they experienced either a significant increase in inflammation (an increase in hsCRP of ≥10 mg/liter between any 2 time points 1 year apart; designated the increased inflammation cohort [n = 103]) or decrease in inflammation (a decrease in hsCRP of ≥10 mg/liter between any 2 time points 1 year apart; designated the decreased inflammation cohort [n = 93]). Routine and advanced lipids, markers of inflammation (interleukin-6, hsCRP, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor II), and markers of subclinical myocardial injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hs-cTnT], N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) were measured. Results Among the patients in the increased inflammation cohort, the mean age was 59 years, 81% were women, and the mean RA disease duration was 17.9 years. The average increase in hsCRP levels was 36 mg/liter, and this increase was associated with significant reductions in LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein (Apo B), and Apo A-I levels. In the increased inflammation cohort at baseline, 45.6% of patients (47 of 103) had detectable circulating hs-cTnT, which further increased during inflammation (P = 0.02). In the decreased inflammation cohort, hs-cTnT levels remained stable despite a reduction in inflammation over follow-up. In both cohorts, hs-cTnT levels were associated with the overall estimated risk of CVD. Conclusion Among RA patients who experienced an increase in inflammation, a significant decrease in routinely measured lipids, including LDL cholesterol, and an increase in markers of subclinical myocardial injury were observed. These findings highlight the divergence in biomarkers of CVD risk and suggest a role in future studies examining the benefit of including hs-cTnT for CVD risk stratification in RA.

To characterise the incidence rate of skin cancer associated with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine in older adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).RA patients aged ≥65 years who initiated methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine as their first disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The primary outcome was new occurrence of any skin cancer (i.e. malignant melanoma or non-melanoma skin cancer; NMSC) based on validated algorithms (positive predictive value83%). Secondary outcomes were malignant melanoma, NMSC, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). We estimated the incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) for each outcome in the 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine groups.We included 24,577 PS-matched pairs of methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine initiators. Compared with hydroxychloroquine (IR 25.20/1,000 person-years), methotrexate initiators (IR 26.21/1,000 person-years) had a similar risk of any skin cancer [HR 1.03 -(95%CI 0.92, 1.14)] over a mean follow-up of 388 days. The HR (95%CI) associated with methotrexate was 1.39 (0.87, 2.21) for malignant melanoma, 1.01(0.90, 1.12) for NMSC, 1.37 (1.13, 1.66) for BCC, and 0.79 (0.63, 0.99) for SCC compared with hydroxychloroquine.In this large cohort of older RA patients initiating methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine as their first DMARD, we found no difference in the risk of skin cancer including malignant melanoma and NMSC. However, for specific components of NMSC, methotrexate initiators had higher risk of BCC but lower risk of SCC compared with hydroxychloroquine initiators.

Objective To assess the frequency of cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic events in clinical studies of baricitinib, an oral, selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor approved in more than 50 countries for the treatment of moderately‐to‐severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Data were pooled from 9 RA studies. Placebo comparison up to 24 weeks included data from 6 studies. Randomized dose comparison between baricitinib doses of 2 mg and 4 mg used data from 4 studies and from the associated long‐term extension study. The data analysis set designated “All‐bari‐RA” included all baricitinib exposures at any dose. Results Overall, 3,492 RA patients received baricitinib (7,860 patient‐years of exposure). No imbalance compared to the placebo group was seen in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (incidence rates [IRs] of 0.5 per 100 patient‐years for placebo and 0.8 per 100 patient‐years for 4 mg baricitinib), arterial thrombotic events (ATE) (IRs of 0.5 per 100 patient‐years for placebo and 0.5 per 100 patient‐years for 4 mg baricitinib), or congestive heart failure (CHF) broad term (IRs of 4.3 per 100 patient‐years for placebo and 2.4 per 100 patient‐years for 4 mg baricitinib). Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE) were reported in 0 of 1,070 patients treated with placebo and 6 of 997 patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib during the placebo‐controlled period; these events were serious in 2 of 6 patients, while all 6 had risk factors and 1 patient developed DVT/PE after discontinuation of the study drug. In the 2 mg–4 mg‐extended data analysis set, IRs of DVT/PE were comparable between the doses across event types (IRs of 0.5 per 100 patient‐years in those receiving 2 mg baricitinib and 0.6 per 100 patient‐years in those receiving 4 mg baricitinib). In the All‐bari‐RA data analysis set, the rates were stable over time, with an IR of DVT/PE of 0.5 per 100 patient‐years. Conclusions In RA clinical trials, no association was found between baricitinib treatment and the incidence of MACE, ATE, or CHF. With regard to incidence of DVT/PE, 6 events occurred in patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib, but no cases of DVT/PE were reported in the placebo group. During longer‐term evaluation, the incidence of DVT/PE was similar between the baricitinib dose groups, with consistent IR values over time, and this was similar to the rates previously reported in patients with RA.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving tofacitinib versus those receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. METHODS RA patients who were initiating treatment with tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor and had not previously received any biologic agent or tofacitinib were identified from the Truven MarketScan database (2012-2016) or Medicare claims (parts A, B, and D) database (2012-2015). Patients were followed up until treatment discontinuation, treatment switch, insurance disenrollment, or administrative censoring. The outcome of VTE was identified using inpatient claims for pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were determined using a Cox proportional hazards model after accounting for confounding through propensity score-based fine-stratification weighting. HRs were pooled across databases using the inverse variance meta-analytic method. RESULTS A total of 34,074 RA patients (mean age 50 years; 5.6% tofacitinib initiators) and 17,086 RA patients (mean age 71 years; 5.8% tofacitinib initiators) were identified from the Truven and Medicare databases, respectively. The crude incidence rates of VTE per 100 person-years were 0.60 (95% CI 0.26-1.19) and 0.34 (95% CI 0.27-0.41) in Truven and 1.12 (95% CI 0.45-2.31) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.76-1.11) in Medicare for patients receiving tofacitinib and patients receiving TNF inhibitors, respectively. Propensity score-adjusted HRs showed no significant differences in the risk of VTE between tofacitinib-treated and TNF inhibitor-treated patients in either database, with a pooled HR of 1.33 (95% CI 0.78-2.24). CONCLUSION Occurrence of VTE in a total of 50,865 RA patients initiating treatment with tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor was infrequent (

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide general guidance for commonly encountered clinical scenarios. The recommendations do not dictate the care for an individual patient. The ACR considers adherence to the recommendations described in this guideline to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the clinicians in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice. ACR recommendations are not intended to dictate payment or insurance decisions, or drug formularies or other third-party analyses. Third parties that cite ACR guidelines should state that these recommendations are not meant for this purpose. These recommendations cannot adequately convey all uncertainties and nuances of patient care. The American College of Rheumatology is an independent, professional, medical and scientific society that does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse any commercial product or service. OBJECTIVE. To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS. We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS. The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION. This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients’ values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

Drs. Pincus, Bergman, and Yazici have raised some concerns about our published article comparing the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) with simultaneous measures of the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3).1 We believe our publication has clearly established that the validated CDAI scores provide a fundamentally different evaluation of disease status compared with the RAPID3.

ObjectiveIn patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with low 28-joint tender and swollen joint counts but who assessed their disease as active, to evaluate whether activity reflected RA symptoms.MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional study of patients in BRASS, a cohort of patients with established RA who had 28-joint counts assessed, scored their disease activity, identified their painful joints, and answered questions about other sites of pain and fatigue. Patients and their rheumatologists were asked about the presence of fibromyalgia. We examined whether patients reported pain in joints excluded from the 28-joint joint count (feet, ankles, hips, neck) and pain or symptoms probably unrelated to RA including low back pain, headache and fibromyalgia. Fatigue was not classified. Analyses were descriptive.ResultsOf 272 patients, 49 had tender and swollen joint counts ConclusionIf joint counts

ObjectiveTo determine the association between novel lifestyle factors on risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD), define the threshold at which smoking increases RA-ILD risk, and calculate the degree to which known lifestyle and clinical factors predict RA-ILD.MethodsThis nested case-control study matched incident RA-ILD cases to RA non-ILD controls on age, sex, RA duration, rheumatoid factor, and time from exposure assessment to RA-ILD. Exposures included education, BMI, smoking, anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, race, joint erosions, rheumatoid nodules, C-reactive protein (CRP), disease activity score, functional status, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and glucocorticoid use. OR for each exposure on risk of RA-ILD were obtained from logistic regression models. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated based on all lifestyle and clinical exposures.ResultsWe identified 84 incident RA-ILD cases and 233 matched controls. After adjustment, obesity, high-positive CRP (≥ 10 mg/L), and poor functional status (multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire [MDHAQ] ≥ 1) were associated with increased risk of RA-ILD (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.11–5.24 vs normal BMI; OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.21–5.64 vs CRP < 3 mg/L; OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.32–7.26 vs MDHAQ < 0.2). Smoking 30 pack-years or more was strongly associated with risk of RA-ILD compared to never smokers (OR 6.06, 95% CI 2.72–13.5). Together, lifestyle and clinical risk factors for RA-ILD had an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73–0.85).ConclusionObesity, CRP, functional status, and extensive smoking may be novel risk factors for RA-ILD that may be useful for RA-ILD risk assessment and prevention. The overall ability to predict RA-ILD remains modest.

ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy and safety of pegloticase in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with uncontrolled gout in an exploratory, open-label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03635957) prior to a randomized, controlled trial.MethodsA multicenter, open-label efficacy and safety study of pegloticase with MTX co-treatment was conducted in patients with uncontrolled gout. Patients were administered oral MTX (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) 4 weeks prior to and throughout pegloticase treatment. The primary study outcome was the proportion of responders, defined as serum uric acid (sUA) < 6 mg/dL for ≥ 80% of the time during Month 6 (Weeks 20, 22, and 24). All analyses were performed on a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as patients who received ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion.ResultsSeventeen patients were screened and 14 patients (all men, average age 49.3 ± 8.7 years) were enrolled. On Day 1, mean sUA was 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL, and 12 of the 14 patients had visible tophi. At the 6-month timepoint, 11/14 (78.6%, 95% CI 49.2–95.3%) met the responder definition, with 3 patients discontinuing after meeting protocol-defined treatment discontinuation rules (preinfusion sUA values > 6 mg/dL at 2 consecutive scheduled visits). All patients tolerated MTX. No new safety concerns were identified.ConclusionIn this study, an increased proportion of patients maintained therapeutic response at 6 months when treated concomitantly with MTX and pegloticase as compared to the previously reported 42% using pegloticase alone. These results support the need for a randomized study of MTX or placebo with pegloticase to validate these open-label findings.

SB4, SB2, and SB5 are biosimilars of etanercept (ETN), infliximab (INF), and adalimumab (ADA), respectively. This pooled analysis evaluated the immunogenicity of these treatments across three phase...

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included 2 rounds of asynchronous anonymous voting by e-mail and 3 webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: The task force approved 77 initial guidance statements: 36 with moderate and 41 with high consensus. These were combined, resulting in 25 final guidance statements. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated.

Objective To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by email and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. Results Draft guidance statements approved by the task force have been combined to form final guidance. Conclusion These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated.

ObjectivesTo detail the greatest areas of unmet scientific and clinical needs in rheumatology.MethodsThe 21st annual international Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting brought together more than 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were convened, consisting of 5 disease-specific groups with 20–30 experts assigned to each group based on expertise. Specific groups included: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and other systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. In each group, experts were asked to identify unmet clinical and translational research needs in general and then to prioritise and detail the most important specific needs within each disease area.ResultsOverarching themes across all disease states included the need to innovate clinical trial design with emphasis on studying patients with refractory disease, the development of trials that take into account disease endotypes and patients with overlapping inflammatory diseases, the need to better understand the prevalence and incidence of inflammatory diseases in developing regions of the world and ultimately to develop therapies that can cure inflammatory autoimmune diseases.ConclusionsUnmet needs for new therapies and trial designs, particularly for those with treatment refractory disease, remain a top priority in rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the safety and efficacy of ABT-122, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)- and interleukin-17A (IL-17A)-targeted dual variable domain immunoglobulin, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS Patients (n = 240) were randomized to receive ABT-122 (120 or 240 mg every week), adalimumab (40 mg every other week), or placebo in a 12-week double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in disease activity according to the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary and exploratory 12-week end points included 50% improvement (ACR50) and 70% improvement (ACR70) response rates, and proportion of patients meeting the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response criteria for ≥75% (PASI75) and ≥90% (PASI90) improvement in skin scores among those with ≥3% of their body surface area affected by psoriasis. RESULTS In both ABT-122 dose groups, ACR20 response rates at week 12 (64.8-75.3%) were superior to that in patients receiving placebo (25.0%) (P < 0.001) but similar to that in patients receiving adalimumab (68.1%). ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were also superior in both ABT-122 dose groups (36.6-53.4% and 22.5-31.5%, respectively) compared to the placebo group (12.5% and 4.2%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Among eligible patients in the placebo, adalimumab, ABT-122 120 mg every week, and ABT-122 240 mg every week treatment groups, PASI75 responses were achieved in 27.3%, 57.6%, 74.4%, and 77.6% of patients, respectively, whereas PASI90 responses were achieved in 18.2%, 45.5%, 48.8%, and 46.9% of patients, respectively. Frequencies of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, were similar across all treatment groups, causing no discontinuations. No serious infections or systemic hypersensitivity reactions were reported with ABT-122. CONCLUSION Dual neutralization of TNF and IL-17A with ABT-122 had efficacy and safety that was similar to, and not broadly differentiated from, that of adalimumab over a 12-week treatment course in patients with PsA.

OBJECTIVE Current validated cardiovascular (CV) risk estimates were developed in populations with relatively stable levels of inflammation, whereas patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) routinely experience significant changes in inflammation. This study was undertaken to test whether changes in inflammation affect estimated CV risk as measured using validated population-based risk calculators. METHODS Participants in a prospective RA cohort who experienced a decrease or an increase of ≥10 mg/liter in the C-reactive protein (CRP) level at 2 consecutive time points 1 year apart (CRP decrease group and CRP increase group, respectively) were included in this study. We estimated 10-year CV risk using the following calculators: Framingham Risk Score, 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Score, Reynolds Risk Score (RRS), and QRISK2. Of these calculators, only the RRS includes a variable addressing the CRP level. Paired t-tests were performed to compare risk scores at baseline and 1-year follow-up. We calculated the correlations between the changes in risk scores and changes in pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (pro BNP), a surrogate marker of CV risk. RESULTS One hundred eighty RA patients were included in the study (mean age 57.8 years, 84% female, 80% seropositive). Of the calculators studied, only the RRS was sensitive to changes in inflammation; an increase in inflammation was associated with increased estimated CV risk (P < 0.0001), and only the RRS was correlated with changes in proBNP (r = 0.17, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION Our data showed no significant change in CV risk estimated using validated general population CV risk calculators except for the RRS. These findings suggest that CV risk may be modulated by changes in inflammation in RA, which is not typically considered when using existing CV risk calculators.

Objective The 24-week equivalent efficacy and comparable safety results of the biosimilar SB5 and reference adalimumab (ADA) from the phase III randomized study in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported previously. We undertook this transition study to evaluate patients who switched from ADA to SB5 or who continued to receive SB5 or ADA up to 52 weeks. Methods In this phase III study, patients were initially randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or ADA (40 mg subcutaneously every other week). At 24 weeks, patients receiving ADA were rerandomized 1:1 to continue with ADA (ADA/ADA group) or to switch to SB5 (ADA/SB5 group) up to week 52; patients receiving SB5 continued with SB5 for 52 weeks (SB5 group). Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated up to 52 weeks. Results The full analysis set population consisted of 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the ADA overall group [patients who were randomized to receive ADA at week 0], 125 in the ADA/SB5 group, and 129 in the ADA/ADA group). The percentages of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20, ACR50, or ACR70 response) at week 24 were maintained after the transition from ADA to SB5, and these response rates were comparable across treatment groups throughout the study. ACR20 response rates ranged from 73.4% to 78.8% at week 52. Radiographic progression was minimal and comparable across treatment groups. The safety profile and the incidence of antidrug antibodies were comparable across treatment groups after transition. Conclusion SB5 was well tolerated over 1 year in patients with RA, with efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity comparable to those of ADA. Switching from ADA to SB5 had no treatment-emergent issues such as increased adverse events, increased immunogenicity, or loss of efficacy.

The 19th annual international Targeted Therapies meeting brought together over 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers from around the world in the field of immunology, molecular biology and rheumatology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were held consisting of 5 disease-specific groups with 20-40 experts assigned to each group based on clinical or scientific expertise. Specific groups included: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematous, connective tissue diseases (e.g. Sjogren's syndrome, Systemic sclerosis, vasculitis including Bechet's and IgG4 related disease), and a basic science immunology group spanning all of the above clinical domains. In each group, experts were asked to consider and update previously identified unmet needs in 3 categorical areas: basic/translational science, clinical science and therapeutic development, and clinical care. Overall, similar primary unmet needs were identified within each disease foci, and several additional needs were identified since the time of last year's congress. Within translational/basic science, the need for better understanding the heterogeneity within each disease was highlighted so that predictive tools for therapeutic responses can be developed. Within clinical science and therapeutic trials, a strong focus was placed upon the need to identify pre-clinical states of disease allowing prevention in those at risk. The ability to cure remains perhaps the ultimate unmet need. Further, the need to develop new and affordable therapeutics, as well as to conduct strategic trials of currently approved therapies was again highlighted. Within the clinical care realm, improved co-morbidity management and patient-centered care were identified as unmet needs. Lastly, it was strongly felt there was a need to develop a scientific infrastructure for well-characterized, longitudinal cohorts paired with biobanks and mechanisms to support data-sharing. This infrastructure could facilitate many of the unmet needs identified within each disease area.

Background:Busy rheumatologists may assess disease activity and risk for radiographic progression (RP) in RA with informal, qualitative versions of evaluator and/or patient global assessments (EGA and PGA). RA patient care may be improved by having a convenient, objective disease activity measure that predicts risk for RP more accurately than EGA or PGA.Objectives:To compare the abilities of MBDA score, patient global assessment and evaluator global assessment to assess risk for radiographic progression (RP), and to assess the ability of MBDA score to predict RP among patients with concordant or discordant PGA and EGA.Methods:Patients were pooled from two RCTs of patients with recent onset RA treated with conventional and biologic DMARDs (OPERA and SWEFOT, N=386) and from a registry of patients with predominantly established RA and diverse treatments (BRASS, N=380). Pearson correlations were determined between MBDA scores (adjusted for the effects of age, sex and adiposity) (scale 1-100), PGA and EGA (each on a scale of 1-10) at baseline. PGA and EGA were considered discordant when they differed by >2.5. Univariable logistic regression assessed ability to predict RP (change in TSS >5 over 1 year) for MBDA score, PGA and EGA as continuous variables; and for discordance of PGA and EGA as 2-level (concordant vs. discordant) or 3-level (PGA>EGA, concordant, EGA>PGA) categorical variables. Multivariable regression considered the main effect and interaction terms of the MBDA score, as a continuous variable, paired with each other variable, to test the ability of each pair to assess risk of RP. All models included a random effect on cohort. Odds ratios were reported for every 10-unit increase in MBDA score. Frequency of RP was determined in subgroups with MBDA score low (44) for patient groups based on PGA/EGA concordance or discordance.Results:The 766 patients studied were 76% female, 76% positive for RF and/or anti-CCP Ab, with mean age 55 years, DAS28-CRP 4.7, CRP 22 mg/L, CDAI 26, SJC 9.1, PGA 4.4, EGA 3.4, MBDA score 53. No interaction was seen between MBDA score and type of cohort (early vs established RA). PGA and EGA were discordant in 294 of 766 (38%) patients and were weakly to moderately correlated (r=0.38). Among discordant patients, PGA was >EGA in 227 cases and EGA was >PGA in 67 cases. Correlations between MBDA score and PGA or EGA were r=0.41 and r=0.34, respectively. In univariable analyses, MBDA score was a statistically significant predictor of radiographic progression (OR=1.53, p=6.3x10-8) whereas PGA, EGA, 2-level discordance and 3-level discordance were not (p=0.38, 0.47, 0.74, 0.83, respectively). In multivariable analyses, significant interactions were observed between MBDA score and discordance (2-level, p=0.0029; 3-level, p=0.0087). The interaction analysis demonstrated, in PGA/EGA-concordant patients, low risk of radiographic progression when MBDA score was low and elevated risk when it was high (OR=1.33 [1.1, 1.59]). A relationship between MBDA score and RP risk was also demonstrated, with heightened trend, among discordant patients with PGA >EGA (OR=2.04 [1.53, 2.81]) and EGA >PGA (OR=3.43 [1.37, 13.8]) (Figure 1).Conclusion:MBDA score was a significant predictor of radiographic progression, whereas PGA and EGA were not. MBDA score predicted progression whether PGA and EGA were concordant or discordant. These results suggest that MBDA score detects joint-damaging disease activity more accurately than PGA and EGA and it does so whether or not PGA and EGA are in agreement.Disclosure of Interests:Leonard Calabrese Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cresecendo, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi., Michael E. Weinblatt Shareholder of: Canfite, Inmedix, Scipher, and Vorso, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Corrona, EqRX, GSK,Genosco, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Set Point, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, Inc.,Eli Lilly and Sanofi, Nancy Shadick Consultant of: BMS, Grant/research support from: Lilly, mallinckrodt, BMS, Amgen and Sanofi, Cecilie Heegaard Brahe: None declared, Mikkel Østergaard Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Centocor, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Takeda, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Janssen, and Merck, Merete L. Hetland Speakers bureau: Orion, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, CelltrionRoche, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Eli Lily, MSD, Pfizer, and UCB, Megan Horton Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Darl Flake Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Eric Sasso Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Autoimmune

Objective SB5 is a biosimilar agent for adalimumab (ADA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of SB5 in comparison with reference ADA in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods In this phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with moderately to severely active RA despite treatment with methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or reference ADA at a dosage of 40 mg subcutaneously every other week. The primary efficacy end point was the response rate based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 24 in the per-protocol set (completer analysis). Additional end points included efficacy, PK, safety, and immunogenicity assessments. Results Of the 544 patients randomized to receive a study drug, the full analysis set comprised 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the reference ADA group) and the per-protocol set comprised 476 patients (239 receiving SB5, 237 receiving reference ADA). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was equivalent between those receiving SB5 and those receiving reference ADA (72.4% and 72.2%, respectively); the difference in the ACR20 response rate (0.1%, [95% confidence interval −7.83%, 8.13%]) was within the predefined equivalence margin (±15%). Similar results were seen in the full analysis set (missing data being considered a nonresponse). The SB5 and reference ADA treatment groups were comparable across other end points, including the ACR 50% and ACR 70% improvement response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PK data, incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, and the antidrug antibody response. Subgroup analyses showed that the efficacy and safety of SB5 and reference ADA were comparable regardless of antidrug antibody status. Conclusion The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was equivalent between patients treated with the biosimilar agent SB5 and those treated with reference ADA. SB5 and reference ADA were both well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles, in patients with RA.

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.

BackgroundTo assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).MethodsIn this double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo (n=488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n=487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n=330) with background MTX. PROs included the SF-36, EuroQol 5-D (EQ-5D) index scores and visual analogue scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient’s assessment of pain and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Ttiredness and Worst Joint Pain. The primary study endpoint was at week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables.ResultsCompared with placebo and adalimumab, baricitinib showed statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, FACIT-F, SF-36 physical component score, EQ-5D index scores and WPAI-RA daily activity at week 12. Improvements were maintained for measures assessed to week 52. Statistically significant improvement in patient diary measures (MJS duration and severity), worst tiredness and worst joint pain were observed for baricitinib versus placebo and adalimumab at week 12 (p≤0.05).ConclusionsBaricitinib provided significantly greater improvement in most PROs compared with placebo and adalimumab, including physical function MJS, pain, fatigue and quality of life. Improvement was maintained to the end of the study (week 52).Trial registrationNCT01710358.

Objective To quantify differences and determine the factors contributing to the difference in patient global assessment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity (PtGA) between RA patients with multiple morbidities (RA-MM) and those with RA only. Methods We compared the PtGA between RA-MM patients and those with RA only, followed up in a longitudinal cohort (n = 1,040). In analyses performed on RA-MM patients (n = 575) and those with RA only (matched for swollen joint count, tender joint count, evaluator global assessment, and disease duration), the mean difference in PtGA (ΔPtGA) between the 2 groups was assessed. The contribution of patient characteristics to the explained variation of ΔPtGA in the matched cohort was calculated as semipartial R2 and summarized as the percentage of the total R2 in linear regression models. Results RA-MM patients reported higher (or worse) PtGA, with an increased PtGA associated with more morbidities (P for linear trend

ObjectivesDespite the therapeutic value of current rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments, agents with alternative modes of action are required. Mavrilimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor-α, was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA.MethodsIn a phase IIb study (NCT01706926), patients with inadequate response to ≥1 synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s), Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)−C reactive protein (CRP)/erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥3.2, ≥4 swollen joints despite methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 1:1:1:1 to subcutaneous mavrilimumab (150, 100, 30 mg), or placebo every other week (eow), plus MTX for 24 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were DAS28−CRP change from baseline to week 12 and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response rate (week 24).Results326 patients were randomised (150 mg, n=79; 100 mg, n=85; 30 mg, n=81; placebo, n=81); 305 completed the study (September 2012–June 2013). Mavrilimumab treatment significantly reduced DAS28−CRP scores from baseline compared with placebo (change from baseline (SE); 150 mg: −1.90 (0.14), 100 mg: −1.64 (0.13), 30 mg: −1.37 (0.14), placebo: −0.68 (0.14); pSignificantly more mavrilimumab-treated patients achieved ACR20 compared with placebo (week 24: 73.4%, 61.2%, 50.6% vs 24.7%, respectively (pConclusionsMavrilimumab significantly decreased RA disease activity, with clinically meaningful responses observed 1 week after treatment initiation, representing a novel mechanism of action with persuasive therapeutic potential.Trial registration numberNCT01706926; results.

Background:The multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) blood test measures 12 protein biomarkers (IL-6, CRP, SAA, EGF, VEGF, VCAM, MMP-1, MMP-3, leptin, resistin, TNF-RI and YKL40). It uses a validated algorithm to provide a score on a scale of 1-100 for assessing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The MBDA score reflects several molecular aspects of inflammation, including cytokines, acute phase reactants, growth factors, molecular adhesion, metalloproteinases and hormones. Insights gained by understanding how vaccination affects these biomarkers in healthy subjects - in whom the level of inflammation prior to vaccination should be low and stable - may aid the understanding of how vaccination affects patients with RA.Objectives:The goal of this study was to understand how immunization of healthy subjects with the influenza vaccine affects the assessment of inflammation with the MBDA score and its 12 biomarkers.Methods:A 4-strain influenza virus vaccine (Fluarix Quadrivalent, GlaxoSmithKline) was administered intramuscularly to 22 healthy volunteer subjects on October 24, 2018. Serum samples were obtained immediately prior to vaccination (baseline) and 1, 2 and 3 weeks after vaccination. No restrictions were placed on subject activity. Samples were stored at -80oC until measurement of the 12 MBDA biomarkers for determination of the adjusted MBDA score, hereafter called the MBDA score. (Adjustment accounts for the effects of age, sex and adiposity1). MBDA scores (natural scale) and biomarker concentrations (log scale) were modeled using generalized estimating equations (GEE) that account for correlations between measurements from the same subject at multiple timepoints. Significance of MBDA score change or biomarker concentration change over time was determined by a likelihood ratio test of timepoints.Results:Of the 22 healthy subjects receiving the influenza virus vaccine, 14 (63.6%) were female, with mean (SD) age of 40.0 years (8.9). MBDA scores were low (44) for 15 (68%), 6 (27%) and 1 (5%) subjects at baseline, and this distribution was stable over time (Figure 1). Overall, MBDA scores did not change significantly over time (p=0.48, Figure 2). Mean changes in MBDA score (95% CI) from baseline to weeks 1, 2 and 3 were 0.32 (-3.07, 3.71), 0.82 (-3.03, 4.67) and 2.86 (-1.10, 6.82), respectively (Figure 2); the week 3 value becomes 0.95 (-1.78, 3.68) if the week 3 outlier is removed. Among the 66 post-baseline measurements of change in MBDA score (Figure 2), 3 (5%) exceeded the 95% CI for change in MBDA score in this study (i.e., 14). When assessing the entire cohort across all timepoints, EGF was the only biomarker that demonstrated statistically significant change over time (p=5.6 x 10-7). At weeks 1, 2 and 3, the mean relative concentrations of EGF, compared with baseline, were 0.62 (0.52, 0.74), 0.86 (0.70, 1.06) and 0.62 (0.50, 0.76), respectively.Figure 1Figure 2Conclusion:Immunization of 22 healthy subjects with a quadrivalent influenza vaccine did not have a statistically significant effect on MBDA scores during a 3-week observation, and it had minimal effect on the component biomarkers.References:[1]Curtis et al.Rheumatology [Oxford]2018;58:874Disclosure of Interests:Daniel Furst Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Cytori Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Speakers bureau: CMC Connect (McCann Health Company), Lauren Lenz Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Megan Horton Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Darl Flake Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Eric Sasso Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Michael E. Weinblatt Grant/research support from: BMS, Amgen, Lilly, Crescendo and Sonofi-Regeneron, Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Abbvie, Crescendo, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead

Background:RA is a systemic autoimmune disease with heterogeneous manifestation. Recent advances in serum proteomics, such as the SomaScan®platform (SomaLogic, Inc., Boulder, USA), allow for a deeper exploration of the protein biomarkers associated with RA and a better understanding of the molecular aetiology of the disease.Objectives:To characterise the differences in baseline serum proteome of patients with RA (enrolled in the Phase IIIb Abatacept vs adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvERA subjects with background MTX [AMPLE] study)1compared with a healthy population, and to identify serum protein biomarkers associated with disease severity and radiographic progression.Methods:Patients in the AMPLE study had an inadequate response to MTX and were naïve to biologic DMARDs. Protein abundance was assessed in baseline serum samples from 440 AMPLE study patients and 123 healthy individuals with matching demographics using the SomaScan®platform, with 5000+ slow off-rate modified aptamers and up to 8 log of dynamic range.2Differential abundance testing was performed using linear models to identify differences in protein abundance in patients with RA vs healthy individuals. A separate analysis using a linear model was conducted in only the patients with RA to identify the proteins associated with DAS28 (CRP) and TSS. Pathway analyses were performed for proteins significantly (false discovery rate-adjusted p value Results:Compared with healthy individuals, >2000 serum proteins were significantly differentially expressed in patients with RA, including many proteins that have been associated with RA (e.g. serum amyloid A [SAA], CRP) and complement. Most of the protein expression differences were of small magnitude (fold change Conclusion:Our study revealed that thousands of serum proteins are differentially expressed and several pathways are dysregulated between patients with RA and healthy individuals. Additional pathways were identified that reflect disease severity, including joint damage, distinct from those pathways associated with the disease. The SomaScan®platform provides a unique proteomic tool with a wide dynamic range for the identification of serum protein biomarkers associated with RA and disease severity. Proteomic signatures should be considered in clinical trials to better understand disease pathogenesis and predict risk in response to treatment.References:[1]Schiff M, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2014;73:86–94.[2]Gold L, et al.PLoS One2010;5:e15004.Acknowledgments:Rachel Rankin (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)Disclosure of Interests:David Galbraith Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Minal Caliskan Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Omar Jabado Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sarah Hu Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Michael Weinblatt Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Lily, Sanofi/Regeneron, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Gilead, Horizon, Lily, Pfizer, Roche, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Michael A Maldonado Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sheng Gao Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral selective JAK1 inhibitor, has demonstrated favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in five Phase 3 global studies in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).1–5Objectives:This analysis reports the efficacy and safety of UPA in predefined RA patient subgroups based on differences in baseline demographics and disease activity.Methods:Data were pooled from three pivotal, double-blind, PBO-controlled, multicenter, Phase 3 studies in patients with RA who had an inadequate response(IR) to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD-IR: SELECT-NEXT [N=661]), MTX(MTX-IR; SELECT-COMPARE[N=1629]), or biologic DMARDs(bDMARD-IR: SELECT-BEYOND[N=498]). Two integrated analysis sets were evaluated: one comparing UPA 15 mg QD vs PBO(SELECT-NEXT, SELECT-COMPARE, SELECT-BEYOND) and the other comparing UPA 15 mg QD and UPA 30 mg QD vs PBO(SELECT-NEXT, SELECT-BEYOND). All patients received background treatment with csDMARDs. The proportion of patients achieving ACR20 and DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2 at Week 12 was evaluated by predefined baseline demographics and disease activity measure groups, including age, sex, weight, BMI, race, geographic region, duration of RA, RF, and ACPA status, and level of high sensitivity CRP. Non-responder imputation was used for missing data. Subgroup analyses for safety were performed for age, race, sex, weight, BMI, and Asian region.Results:Across the three Phase 3 studies, 1036, 384, and 1041 patients received UPA 15 mg QD, UPA 30 mg QD or PBO, respectively. The demographic and baseline disease characteristics in the two integrated analysis sets were balanced across treatment groups. ACR20 and DAS28 ≤3.2 response rates at Week 12 were consistently higher with UPA 15 mg and UPA 30 mg vs PBO across the evaluated demographic and baseline disease characteristics(Figure 1a,Figure 1b). The efficacy of UPA 15 mg QD was generally similar to that observed with UPA 30 mg QD. At 12 weeks, the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent AEs, serious AEs, severe AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were generally comparable across different age, sex, race, weight, and BMI groups. Compared with the global population, patients receiving UPA in the Asian region had a higher rate of CPK elevations(UPA 30 mg only) and herpes zoster; herpes zoster also has been observed to be higher in the Asian region with other JAK inhibitors.6,7Conclusion:In this analysis of pooled integrated efficacy data in csDMARD-IR or bDMARD-IR patients with RA, UPA 15 mg or 30 mg QD in combination with csDMARDs improved efficacy outcomes at Week 12 when compared with PBO across all predefined subgroups evaluated.References:[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet 2018 23;391:2503–2512;[2]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet 2018; 391:2513–24;[3]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet 2019 May 23[Epub ahead of print];[4]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 891;[5]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 890;[6]Winthrop KL, et al. Arthritis Rheum 2014;66:2675-84;[7] Winthrop KL, et al. ACR 2016 [Abstract 3027]Disclosure of Interests:Michael Weinblatt Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Lily, Sanofi/Regeneron, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Gilead, Horizon, Lily, Pfizer, Roche, Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Aaron Broadwell Grant/research support from: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, GSK, Horizon, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Sanofi-Regeneron, UCB, Sławomir Jeka Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Kendall Dunlap Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Barbara Hendrickson Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Sheng Zhong Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Katya Cherny Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Grace Wright Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Exagen, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme Regeneron, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Exagen, Lilly, Medical Education Resource, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme Regeneron, UCB, and Vindico

Background\ud Previous studies of radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have used candidate-gene approaches, or evaluated single genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We undertook the first meta-analysis of GWAS of RA radiological damage to: (1) identify novel genetic loci for this trait; and (2) test previously validated variants.\ud \ud Methods\ud Seven GWAS (2,775 RA cases, of a range of ancestries) were combined in a meta-analysis. Radiological damage was assessed using modified Larsen scores, Sharp van Der Heijde scores, and erosive status. Single nucleotide polymophsim (SNP) associations with radiological damage were tested at a single time-point using regression models. Primary analyses included age and disease duration as covariates. Secondary analyses also included rheumatoid factor (RF). Meta-analyses were undertaken in trans-ethnic and European-only cases.\ud \ud Results\ud In the trans-ethnic primary meta-analysis, one SNP (rs112112734) in close proximity to HLA-DRB1, and strong linkage disequilibrium with the shared-epitope, attained genome-wide significance (P = 4.2x10-8). In the secondary analysis (adjusting for RF) the association was less significant (P = 1.7x10-6). In both trans-ethnic primary and secondary meta-analyses 14 regions contained SNPs with associations reaching P

ObjectivesWe sought to investigate whether genetic effects on response to TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could be localised by considering known genetic susceptibility loci for relevant traits and to evaluate the usefulness of these genetic loci for stratifying drug response.MethodsWe studied the relation of TNFi response, quantified by change in swollen joint counts ( Δ SJC) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate ( Δ ESR) with locus-specific scores constructed from genome-wide assocation study summary statistics in 2938 genotyped individuals: 37 scores for RA; scores for 19 immune cell traits; scores for expression or methylation of 93 genes with previously reported associations between transcript level and drug response. Multivariate associations were evaluated in penalised regression models by cross-validation.ResultsWe detected a statistically significant association between Δ SJC and the RA score at the CD40 locus (p=0.0004) and an inverse association between Δ SJC and the score for expression of CD39 on CD4 T cells (p=0.00005). A previously reported association between CD39 expression on regulatory T cells and response to methotrexate was in the opposite direction. In stratified analysis by concomitant methotrexate treatment, the inverse association was stronger in the combination therapy group and dissipated in the TNFi monotherapy group. Overall, ability to predict TNFi response from genotypic scores was limited, with models explaining less than 1% of phenotypic variance.ConclusionsThe association with the CD39 trait is difficult to interpret because patients with RA are often prescribed TNFi after failing to respond to methotrexate. The CD39 and CD40 pathways could be relevant for targeting drug therapy.

Objective.Describe strategies used to manage rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flares that contribute to a successful postflare outcome.Methods.Data were collected from the BRASS registry, including clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and a survey with a Likert scale assessing postflare symptoms (better, unchanged, or worse). A logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, flare number in the past 6 months, flare pain severity, home management, clinical consultation, and medication change was performed to evaluate factors influencing flare outcome.Results.Of 503 participants, 185 reported at least 1 flare that had resolved in the past 6 months, with median (interquartile range) 28-joint count Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein 3 score 2.1 (1.7–2.8). Compared with RA symptoms before the flare, 22 (12%) patients felt worse, 125 (68%) were unchanged, and 38 (20%) felt better. To manage flares, 72% of patients used home-based remedies, 23% sought clinical consultation, and 56% made medication change. Of 103 patients who changed medication, 70% did so without seeking clinical advice. Making a medication change (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.68–7.21) and having lower flare pain (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.97) were associated with better flare outcome.Conclusion.Flares occur frequently even in patients with low disease activity. Independent of home-based or clinically guided care, making a medication change and having less severe pain during a flare were associated with better flare outcomes. Of interest, the decision to change medications was frequently made without clinical advice. Future studies might address how best to intervene when patients experience flares and whether patient-initiated medication changes have adverse outcomes.

Background:Gout development follows persistent serum uric acid (sUA) elevation. Patients who are refractory to or cannot tolerate oral urate lowering therapies (ULTs) have limited treatment options. Pegloticase is effective in treating refractory gout, but many patients develop anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), which are associated with loss of urate-lowering efficacy1-3 and infusion reactions (IRs).1,2 In phase 3 trials, the pooled pegloticase responder rate during Months 3 and 6 combined was 42% (8 mg infusion every 2 weeks), with high-titer ADA positive patients losing efficacy prior to 6 months.1 The 6-month results from the MIRROR open-label trial (79% response rate [11/14], 95%CI 49-95%)4 suggest that methotrexate (MTX) administered in conjunction with pegloticase increases treatment responder rate.Objectives:To examine longer-term (12-month) exploratory endpoints from the MIRROR open-label trial, including joint, overall health, and gout global assessments. Serial dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) images were also examined when available.Methods:Adult patients with uncontrolled gout (sUA ≥6 mg/dL with ≥1 of the following: sUA ≥6 mg/dL despite ULT use, intolerance to ULT, or functionally limiting tophaceous deposits) were included. Patients with immunocompromised status, G6PD deficiency, severe renal impairment, or MTX contraindication were excluded. Patients were administered oral MTX (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) 4 weeks prior to and throughout pegloticase therapy (8 mg biweekly infusion for up to 52 weeks). Exploratory outcomes included mean change from baseline (CFB) in number of affected joints (tophi, swollen, tender), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores (Disability Index [DI; score 0−3], Pain [score 0−100], Health [score 0−100]), and Gout Global Assessments (Patient, Physician; score 0−10). A decrease in these measures reflects clinical/patient-reported health improvement. Change in urate deposition volume, as measured on DECT imaging, was also examined as available. Analyses were performed on the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (≥1 pegloticase infusion received).Results:14 patients (all male, mean±SD age: 49.3±8.7 years) made up the mITT population. Mean±SD sUA prior to pegloticase treatment was 9.2±2.5 mg/dL and 13 patients had visible tophi. 3 patients discontinued due to 2 consecutive sUA levels >6 mg/dL and 1 patient completed the study at week 24 (pre-protocol amendment extending treatment from 24 to 52 weeks). 10 patients completed the 52-week study. Of these, 8 patients received 26 infusions and 2 patients received 12 infusions, discontinued pegloticase after meeting their treatment goal at 24 weeks, and started allopurinol while remaining in study under observation. At week 52 (n=10, sUA=1.1±2.5 mg/dL), the number of affected joints improved, along with HAQ measures (Figure 1). Global Assessments of Gout also improved (Physician: CFB=-5.7±2.6, Patient CFB=-4.6±2.1) and majority of subjects had a score of 0 or 1 (0=“excellent health”) at week 52 (Physician: 0.3±0.5, Patient: 1.1±1.3). Two patients had available DECT imaging. One received pegloticase/methotrexate co-therapy thru week 52 and had a marked reduction in total urate volume (baseline: 128.76 cm3, week 52: 1.33 cm3). The other received only 5 pegloticase infusions, but also showed total urate volume reduction (baseline: 59.20 cm3, week 10: 25.07 cm3). Both patients displayed improvement in bone erosion healing.Conclusion:These 12-month exploratory endpoints of the MIRROR open-label trial suggest that MTX/pegloticase co-therapy results in meaningful changes in clinical evaluations (tophaceous, tender, and swollen joint counts), and patient-reported outcomes (pain, disability) in patients with uncontrolled gout.References:[1]Sundy JS et al. JAMA 2011;306:711-20[2]Baraf HS et al. J Clin Rheumatol 2014;20:427-32[3]Lipsky PE et al. Arthritis Res Ther 2014, 16:R60[4]Botson JK et al. J Rheum 2020 [Epub ahead of print]Disclosure of Interests:John Botson Speakers bureau: Horizon Therapeutics, Celgene, Novartis, and AbbVie, Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Celgene, Novartis, and AbbVie, Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics and Radius Health, Paul M. Peloso Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Katie Obermeyer Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Brian LaMoreaux Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Lin Zhao Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Michael E. Weinblatt Shareholder of: Lycera, Can-Fite BioPharma, Scipher Medicine, Inmedix, and Vorso, Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Corona, Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Lycera, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Scipher Medicine, and Set Point, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Lilly and Sanofi, Jeff Peterson Speakers bureau: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics plc.

Background:In an open-label, single-arm trial in adult patients with uncontrolled gout (MIRROR open-label [OL] trial) evaluating pegloticase co-treatment with methotrexate (MTX); 78.6% patients were responders, defined as maintenance of serum uric acid 1. MTX co-treatment is shown to improve the pharmacokinetics (PK) of biologics by attenuating the formation of anti-drug antibodies2.Objectives:To determine the systemic exposures of pegloticase and methotrexate polyglutamate(s) (MTX-PGs) in uncontrolled gout patients receiving pegloticase and MTX; to evaluate the effect of MTX on the PK of pegloticase in comparison to historical pegloticase monotherapy trials (C0405 and C0406)3, 4; and to evaluate the immunogenicity of pegloticase in co-treatment with MTX.Methods:In the MIRROR OL trial, MTX (15 mg/week) was given orally 4 weeks prior to the first pegloticase dose and continued weekly, in combination with pegloticase 8 mg given intravenously every 2 weeks, for a treatment duration of up to 52 weeks. Pre-infusion samples were collected to measure MTX-PGs in red blood cells. Pre- and post-infusion blood samples were obtained to measure the peak (Cmax) and trough (Cmin) concentrations of pegloticase at multiple visits. Anti-drug antibody blood samples were collected at multiple visits. The impact of MTX on pegloticase PK was evaluated by comparing pegloticase exposures with MTX from this trial to historical monotherapy data (C0405 and C0406)3, 4. The observed pegloticase concentrations with MTX were also overlaid with the 90% prediction interval based on the population PK model5 from C0405 and C0406.Results:Pegloticase and MTX-PG levels were determined in 14 patients. The 11 responders were generally associated with higher pegloticase exposures than the non-responders, especially Cmin (Figure 1). Concomitant treatment of MTX resulted in fewer patients with Cmin below quantitation limit (BQL) (5/14 [36%] with MTX vs 63/82 [77%] without MTX), and higher overall Cmin (median: 1.03 µg/ml with MTX vs BQL without MTX); Cmax was slightly higher (median [Q1, Q3]: 2.11 [1.65, 2.59] µg/mL with MTX vs 1.51 [BQL, 2.48] µg/mL without MTX). Pegloticase co-treatment with MTX resulted in more concentrations above the predicted median value of pegloticase, compared to monotherapy. ADA data is consistent with pegloticase PK and efficacy. Significant increase in ADA titers were only observed in 2 subjects (both were non-responders) at time corresponding to the loss of pegloticase exposure and increases in sUA levels. Concentrations of MTX-PGs were maintained during the treatment course, suggesting compliance of MTX administration. There was no apparent difference in concentrations of MTX-PGs between responders and non-responders.Conclusion:Pegloticase 8 mg IV every 2 weeks co-treatment with MTX 15 mg weekly resulted in fewer patients with pegloticase Cmin below the quantification limit (BQL) and gave higher overall trough concentrations (Cmin) compared to pegloticase monotherapy in the phase 3 studies.Pegloticase 8 mg IV every 2 weeks co-treatment with MTX 15 mg weekly was associated with an improved response rate for pegloticase in association with improved drug levels in these patients with uncontrolled gout compared to pegloticase monotherapy in the phase 3 studies.References:[1]Botson J., et al. J Rheumatol. 2020; doi: 10.3899/jrheum.200460[2]Goss S. L., et al. Clin Ther;2018, 40 (2).[3]Lipsky P. E., et al. Arthritis Res Ther;2014, 16 (2).[4]Sundy J. S., et al. JAMA;2011, 306 (7).[5]Yue C. S., et al. ASCPT, Atlanta, 2010.Disclosure of Interests:Yang Song Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Yan Xin Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Michael E. Weinblatt Shareholder of: Canfite, Inmedix, Lycera, Vorso, Scipher, Grant/research support from: Crescendo Bioscience, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Jason Chamberlain Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Katie Obermeyer Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Lin Zhao Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Colleen Canavan Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Paul M. Peloso Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Srini Ramanathan Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics plc, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics plc.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ABT-494, a selective JAK-1 inhibitor, in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Methods Three hundred RA patients receiving stable doses of MTX were randomly assigned equally to receive immediate-release ABT-494 at 3, 6, 12, or 18 mg twice daily, 24 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 12, as determined using the last observation carried forward method. Results At week 12, the proportion of ACR20 responses was higher with ABT-494 (62%, 68%, 80%, 64%, and 76% for the 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 mg doses, respectively) than with placebo (46%) (using nonresponder imputation) (P

Background:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been shown a strong genetic association with particularHLA–DRB1alleles containing shared epitope (SE). However, whether SE is clinically useful in treatment choices is insufficiently investigated1and previous studies have presented mixed findings in the role of SE in the response of TNFi therapies2,3.Objectives:To assess the role of SE in response to TNFi treatment in real-world RA patients (pts).Methods:Pts enrolled in a large RA registry, Brigham and Women’s Hospital RA Sequential Study, with known SE and received TNFi therapies were included for the analysis. TNFi pts were identified by the first-time use of the drugs between March 2003 to June 2018. For this analysis, all pts were followed up to 1 year. Summary statistics are reported for demographics, serostatus and disease activity (DA) at baseline and follow-up, stratified by SE status. Given the strong association of SE and anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA), the analysis was further stratified by ACPA status. The effect of SE on change in DA was assessed using linear regression model with age, gender, RA disease duration, baseline DA, smoking status, SE, ACPA and ACPA-SE interaction as covariates.Results:Of the 484 TNFi pts included in the study, 68.8% were SE+. SE+ pts (vs SE-) were more likely to be rheumatoid factor positive, have erosive disease and a higher disease duration, irrespective of ACPA status. No difference in the change of DA was observed by SE. In SE- pts, ACPA+ pts had a greater reduction of DA than ACPA- pts (Table 1). After accounting for baseline differences, there was no significant effect of SE status on the mean change from baseline in any of the 3 DA measures.(Figure 1) The change in DA was not associated with ACPA but was significantly affected by disease duration and baseline DA.Table 1.Disease Activity in TNFi Patients, Stratified by SE and ACPA StatusParameterSE+ (1 & 2 alleles, n=333)SE- (n=151)ACPA+ACPA–OverallACPA+ACPA-Overall(n=264)(n=69)(n=333)(n=90)(n=61)(n=151)Baseline, Mean (SD)DAS28 CRP3.94 (1.69)3.57 (1.61)3.86 (1.67)3.85 (1.49)3.45 (1.65)3.69 (1.57)CDAI23.06 (18.13)18.95 (15.96)22.25 (17.78)21.91 (15.96)17.72 (17.06)20.26 (16.48)SDAI24.08 (18.82)19.96 (16.59)23.27 (18.45)22.58 (16.34)18.55 (17.87)20.99 (17.01)Follow-up, Mean (SD)DAS28 CRP3.42 (1.55)2.69 (1.32)3.27 (1.53)3.19 (1.43)3.11 (1.53)3.16 (1.47)CDAI17.61 (15.53)12.11 (12.65)16.51 (15.14)15.15 (13.35)14.94 (14.73)15.07 (13.84)SDAI18.35 (15.73)12.45 (12.78)17.15 (15.34)15.31 (13.81)15.71 (15.45)15.46 (14.38)Change, Mean (SD)DAS28 CRP-0.48 (1.31)-0.65 (1.53)-0.52 (1.36)-0.52 (1.50)-0.24 (0.93)-0.42 (1.34)CDAI-4.29 (13.16)-4.79 (13.13)-4.39 (13.12)-6.45 (13.56)-2.63 (9.58)-4.99 (12.28)SDAI-4.74 (14.13)-5.07 (13.90)-4.80 (14.05)-6.87 (14.21)-2.97 (10.32)-5.41 (12.98)Figure 1.Linear Regression Model for Change in Disease Activity*Estimates, p-values are shown as data labels on the graphs; The above model is adjusted for age, gender, RA duration, smoking status, SE status, baseline DA, ACPA and ACPA*SE statusConclusion:This real-world study validates the finding from previous studies conducted in clinical settings that SE does not differentiate treatment response for TNFi therapies.References:[1]Saruhan-Direskeneli G, et al.Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46(12):1842-44[2]Skapenko A, et al.Clin Exp Rheumatol2019;37(5):783-790[3]Rigby W, et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases2019;78(2):263-264Disclosure of Interests:Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joshua Bryson Shareholder of: I own shares of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Employee of: I am a paid employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Qian Xia Shareholder of: I own shares of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Employee of: I am a paid employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Niyati Sharma Consultant of: I work as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Chidananda Samal Consultant of: I work as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Sonie Lama Shareholder of: I own shares of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company., Employee of: I am a paid employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company., Michael E. Weinblatt Grant/research support from: BMS, Amgen, Lilly, Crescendo and Sonofi-Regeneron, Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Abbvie, Crescendo, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead, Nancy Shadick Grant/research support from: Mallinckrodt, BMS, Lilly, Amgen, Crescendo Biosciences, and Sanofi-Regeneron, Consultant of: BMS

Background:Abatacept (ABA) versus adaliMumab (ADA) comParison in bioLogic-naïvERA subjects with background MTX (AMPLE) was a Phase IIIb clinical trial to compare the safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of ABA vs ADA in patients with RA who exhibited an inadequate response to MTX and who were naïve to biologic DMARDs.1While both therapies demonstrated similar efficacy across multiple outcomes, their mechanisms of action (MoAs) are quite different; ABA is a T-cell co-stimulation modulator and ADA is a TNFα inhibitor. Previous transcriptomic analysis of the whole blood samples showed differential pharmacodynamic (PD) effects between the treatments.1–3Objectives:To expand our understanding of differential PD changes in the serum proteome over time in patients treated with ABA or ADA in AMPLE using a novel proteomic platform.Methods:Serum was available from 440 patients in AMPLE at four time points (Days 1, 85, 365 and 729). Serum samples from the patients in AMPLE and 123 healthy individuals with matching demographics were subjected to proteomic quantification by a highly multiplexed DNA aptamer technology with wide dynamic ranges (SomaLogic SomaScan®platform).4A linear model analysis was used to identify protein abundance changes over time and changes specific to treatment. Other covariates included in the model were country of origin, ethnicity and sex. Additionally, patient effect was adjusted for as a random factor.Results:Both treatments exhibited a significant PD effect on serum proteome over the course of the 2-year trial, with 73 proteins modulated by ABA and 125 by ADA. There were large overlaps between the two treatments, including proteins associated with RA, such as C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 13 (CXCL13), matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP3) and serum amyloid A1/A2 (SAA1/2). Changes in the levels of these proteins may be indicative of general improvement of the disease. The proteins modulated by the treatments were enriched in the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) signalling and innate immunity pathways. Among the proteins that exhibited significantly different PD effects between the treatments were CRP, CC chemokine ligand 17 (CCL17) and β-defensin 112 (Figure). While patients showed marked improvement in their symptoms after 2 years of treatment, the overall serum proteomic profiles of the patients were still different from those of a normal healthy population.Conclusion:The SomaScan®platform provides a robust method for quantifying the PD change in a broad portion of the serum proteome in clinical trials. In AMPLE, abatacept was more selective than adalimumab in modulating protein biomarkers in patients with RA, though there was large overlap in proteins modulated by both treatments. The treatment-specific changes may reflect the different MoAs leading to similar clinical outcomes. While patients in both groups benefited from treatments, their serum proteome remained notably different from that of a healthy population. Further analysis by responder status may provide additional links between the treatment responses and proteomic changes. Proteomic approaches as described in our study could contribute to clinical trials and help shape treatment strategies for patients with RA.References:[1]Schiff M, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2014;73:86–94.[2]Bandyopadhyay S, et al.Arthritis Rheum2014;66:Abstract 1520.[3]Sokolove J, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2016;75:709–14.[4]Gold L, et al.PLoS One2010;5:e15004.Disclosure of Interests:David Galbraith Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Minal Caliskan Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Omar Jabado Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sarah Hu Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Michael Weinblatt Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Lily, Sanofi/Regeneron, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Gilead, Horizon, Lily, Pfizer, Roche, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Michael A Maldonado Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sheng Gao Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Background:The multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) score, adjusted for age, sex and adiposity (MBDAadj), has been shown to be better than several conventional disease activity measures for predicting risk for radiographic progression (RP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).1Serologic status and other non-disease activity measures are also predictive of RP risk. Combining them with the MBDAadjshould result in a stronger prognostic test for RP than any one measure alone.Objectives:Develop a multivariate model for predicting risk for RP that includes the adjusted MBDA score and other known predictors of RP.Methods:Four RA cohorts were used, two for training (OPERA and BRASS, n=555) and two for validation (SWEFOT and Leiden, n=397). Each pair of cohorts was heterogeneous in disease duration and treatment history. BMI data were not available for one validation cohort, so a BMI surrogate was modeled using forward selection with the two training cohorts and 3 others (CERTAIN, InFoRM, RACER) (N=1411). An RP risk score was then trained using forward selection in a linear mixed-effects regression, considering disease-related and demographic variables as predictors of change in modified total Sharp score over one year (ΔmTSS), with a random effect on cohort. The RP risk score was validated as a predictor of RP with two cutoffs (ΔmTSS >3 and >5) using logistic mixed-effects regression. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% profile likelihood-based confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the models and significance was assessed by likelihood ratio tests. Risk curves were generated to show probability of RP as a function of the RP risk score.Results:The BMI surrogate included leptin, sex, age and age2and correlated well with BMI (ρ = 0.76). In training, the most significant independent predictors of RP were MBDAadj(p = 0.00020), seropositivity (p = 9.3 x 10-5), BMI surrogate score (p = 0.013) and use of targeted therapy (p = 0.0026). The final model was: RP risk score = 0.024 x MBDAadj+ 0.093 if seropositive – 0.063 x BMI surrogate score – 0.61 if using a targeted therapy. In validation, the OR (95% CI) of the RP risk score for predicting ΔTSS >3 or >5 were 2.2 (1.6, 3.2) (p = 2.6 × 10-6) and 3.1 (2.0, 5.0) (p = 5.7 × 10-8), respectively (Figure 1). The odds of a patient having RP increases by 50% for each 21-unit or 15-unit increase in MBDAadj, for RP defined as ΔTSS >3 or >5, respectively.Figure 1.Conclusion:A multivariate model containing adjusted MBDA score, seropositivity, a BMI surrogate and use of targeted therapy has been trained and validated as a prognostic test for radiographic progression in RA.References:[1]Curtis, et al.Rheumatology [Oxford].2018;58:874Disclosure of Interests:Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Michael E. Weinblatt Grant/research support from: BMS, Amgen, Lilly, Crescendo and Sonofi-Regeneron, Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Abbvie, Crescendo, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead, Nancy Shadick Grant/research support from: Mallinckrodt, BMS, Lilly, Amgen, Crescendo Biosciences, and Sanofi-Regeneron, Consultant of: BMS, Cecilie Heegaard Brahe: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Merete L. Hetland Grant/research support from: BMS, MSD, AbbVie, Roche, Novartis, Biogen and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: Orion Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, CellTrion, Merck and Samsung Bioepis, Saedis Saevarsdottir Employee of: Part-time at deCODE Genetics/Amgen Inc, working on genetic research unrelated to this project, Megan Horton Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Brent Mabey Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Darl Flake Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Rotem Ben-Shachar Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Eric Sasso Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Alexander Gutin Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Elena Hitraya Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Jerry Lanchbury Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Jeffrey Curtis Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB

Background:Gout is a painful inflammatory arthritis caused by persistently elevated serum uric acid (sUA) levels. Pegloticase, an infused recombinant PEGylated uricase, rapidly lowers sUA levels by converting uric acid to allantoin, a water-soluble molecule that is readily excreted by the kidneys. In the phase 3 clinical trials, 42% of patients1dosed with pegloticase every two weeks maintained sUA levels below 6.0 mg/dL during months 3 and 6 of pegloticase treatment. The loss of pegloticase efficacy has been attributed to the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs)1-3and these ADAs have been associated with infusion reactions (IRs).1,2Case reports4and prospective case series5, 6indicate that methotrexate (MTX) may allow patients to attain more complete therapeutic benefits, presumably through attenuation of pegloticase immunogenicity. The current study prospectively examines the efficacy and safety of MTX-pegloticase co-therapy in patients with uncontrolled gout.Objectives:To assess efficacy and safety of concomitant pegloticase and MTX therapy in patients with uncontrolled gout.Methods:Adult patients with uncontrolled gout who were beginning pegloticase therapy were considered for enrollment in this ongoing multicenter, open-label, efficacy and safety study of pegloticase with MTX co-treatment (NCT03635957). Patients were administered oral MTX (15 mg/week) and folate (1 mg/day) 4 weeks prior to the first pegloticase infusion (Day 1) and throughout the pegloticase treatment period. Blood was drawn prior to each infusion to measure sUA level, monitor clinical parameters, and examine for ADA development. All patients followed typical IR prophylaxis protocols (fexofenadine one day before and the morning of each infusion and acetaminophen and IV corticosteroid the morning of each infusion). Patients also received gout flare prophylaxis with either NSAIDs, colchicine or prednisone initiated at least 1 week prior to Day 1. The primary study outcome was the proportion of responders, defined as sUA Results:A total of 17 patients were screened and 14 patients (all men, average age: 49.3 ± 8.7 years) were enrolled. On Day 1, mean sUA was 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL and 12 of the 14 patients had visible tophi. At the 6 months timepoint, 11/14 (78.6%, 95%CI 49.2-95.3%) met the responder definition, with 3 patients discontinuing after meeting stopping rules (pre-infusion sUA values greater than 6 mg/dL at 2 consecutive scheduled visits). All patients tolerated MTX. One serious AE of bacterial sepsis occurred (resolved). AEs that occurred in >1 patient during the co-treatment period were: diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection in 3 patients each, sinusitis, muscle strain, and hypertension in 2 patients each. Gout flares occurred in 12/14 (85.7%) patients. No new safety concerns were identified.Conclusion:An increased proportion of patients maintained therapeutic response at 6 months when treated concomitantly with MTX and pegloticase (78.6%) when compared to the previously reported 42% using pegloticase alone.1These results support and reflect the improved response rates demonstrated in two prior case series.5,6A definitive randomized double-blinded trial evaluating pegloticase with MTX vs. pegloticase with placebo is ongoing.References:[1]Sundy JS et al.JAMA2011;306:711-20.[2]Baraf HS et al.J Clin Rheumatol2014;20:427-32.[3]Lipsky PE et al.Arthritis Res Ther2014;16:R60.[4]Bessen SY et al.Semin Arthritis Rheum2019;49:56-61.[5]Botson J, Peterson J.Ann Rheum Dis2019;78:A1289.[6]Albert JA et al.Arthritis & Rheumatology2019;71(S10):A1236.Disclosure of Interests: :John Botson Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics (PI and study site), Radius Health (study site), Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Speakers bureau: Celgene, Eli Lilly, Horizon Therapeutics, Mallinckrodt, Novartis, Pfizer, Paul M. Peloso Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Katie Obermeyer Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Brian LaMoreaux Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Michael E. Weinblatt Grant/research support from: BMS, Amgen, Lilly, Crescendo and Sonofi-Regeneron, Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Abbvie, Crescendo, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead, Jeff Peterson Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Smith Klein, Horizon Therapeutics, Consultant of: Lilly, Norvartis, Horizon Therapeutics, Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Horizon Therapeutics, Abbvie, Genentech

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between disease activity and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis, three phase III studies of SB4, SB2 and SB5 (biosimilars of etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab) were pooled to assess radiographic progression by disease activity status.MethodsPatients from each study with radiographic data were pooled and grouped based on disease activity state (remission, low disease activity (LDA), moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA)), determined by disease activity score based on 28-joint count (DAS28) per erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at different time points. Mean change in modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) and the proportion of radiographic non-progressors of higher disease activity groups (LDA, MDA and HDA) in reference to remission were summarised descriptively, with comparison of ORs using logistic models.Results1265 patients were included. In all treatments combined, the 1 year mean change in mTSS was 0.03, 0.4, 0.3 and 1.3 and proportion of radiographic non-progressors was 79.8%, 78.1%, 74.1% and 58.4% in the week 24/30 DAS28-determined remission, LDA, MDA and HDA groups, respectively. ORs (95% CIs) of the proportion of non-progressors were lowest in the HDA group in reference to remission (0.35 (0.23 to 0.54)), followed by MDA (0.72 (0.50 to 1.05)) and LDA (0.90 (0.55 to 1.48)) groups. Similar trends were observed when disease activity was assessed using SDAI or CDAI.ConclusionA pooled analysis of radiographic assessment data from three biosimilar studies showed that radiographic progression is small overall but increases with worse disease activity.Trial registration numbersNCT01895309, NCT01936181 and NCT02167139

Objective To evaluate rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and risk of RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). Methods We investigated disease activity and risk of RA-ILD using the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS, 2003-2016). All patients were diagnosed as having RA according to accepted criteria. Disease Activity Scores in 28 joints (DAS28) and covariate data were measured prospectively at annual study visits. Diagnosis of RA-ILD was determined by review of images from clinically indicated chest computed tomography scans. We analyzed patients without RA-ILD at baseline. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RA-ILD, using annually updated DAS28 data, with adjustment for known RA-ILD risk factors (age, sex, smoking status, RA duration, and serologic status). We performed alternative analyses that did not censor at the time of missing DAS28 data and included adjustment for use of methotrexate, use of glucocorticoids, presence of bone erosions, and presence of rheumatoid nodules. Results Among 1,419 participants, the mean ± SD age was 55.8 ± 14.2 years, and 68.6% were seropositive for either cyclic citrullinated peptide or rheumatoid factor. We identified 85 incident cases of RA-ILD during a mean ± SD follow-up duration of 8.9 ± 4.2 years per patient. The moderate/high disease activity group had a multivariable HR of 2.22 (95% CI 1.28-3.82) for RA-ILD compared to the remission/low disease activity group. Risk of RA-ILD increased across disease activity categories: multivariable HR 1.00 (reference) for remission, 1.41 (95% CI 0.61-3.28) for low disease activity, 2.08 (95% CI 1.06-4.05) for moderate disease activity, and 3.48 (95% CI 1.64-7.38) for high disease activity (P for trend = 0.001). For each unit increase in the DAS28, the risk of RA-ILD increased by 35% (95% CI 14-60%). Results were similar in analyses that included follow-up for missing DAS28 data and with adjustment for use of methotrexate, use of glucocorticoids, presence of bone erosions, or presence of rheumatoid nodules. Conclusion Active articular RA was associated with an increased risk of developing RA-ILD. These results suggest that decreasing systemic inflammation may alter the natural history of RA-ILD development.

High-dimensional single-cell analyses have improved the ability to resolve complex mixtures of cells from human disease samples; however, identifying disease-associated cell types or cell states in patient samples remains challenging because of technical and interindividual variation. Here, we present mixed-effects modeling of associations of single cells (MASC), a reverse single-cell association strategy for testing whether case-control status influences the membership of single cells in any of multiple cellular subsets while accounting for technical confounders and biological variation. Applying MASC to mass cytometry analyses of CD4+ T cells from the blood of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and controls revealed a significantly expanded population of CD4+ T cells, identified as CD27- HLA-DR+ effector memory cells, in RA patients (odds ratio, 1.7; P = 1.1 × 10-3). The frequency of CD27- HLA-DR+ cells was similarly elevated in blood samples from a second RA patient cohort, and CD27- HLA-DR+ cell frequency decreased in RA patients who responded to immunosuppressive therapy. Mass cytometry and flow cytometry analyses indicated that CD27- HLA-DR+ cells were associated with RA (meta-analysis P = 2.3 × 10-4). Compared to peripheral blood, synovial fluid and synovial tissue samples from RA patients contained about fivefold higher frequencies of CD27- HLA-DR+ cells, which comprised ~10% of synovial CD4+ T cells. CD27- HLA-DR+ cells expressed a distinctive effector memory transcriptomic program with T helper 1 (TH1)- and cytotoxicity-associated features and produced abundant interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and granzyme A protein upon stimulation. We propose that MASC is a broadly applicable method to identify disease-associated cell populations in high-dimensional single-cell data.

To develop a comprehensive listing of the greatest unmet scientific and clinical needs in rheumatology. The 20th annual international Targeted Therapies meeting brought more than 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were convened, consisting of five disease-specific groups with 20–30 experts assigned to each group based on expertise. Specific groups included rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, connective tissue diseases and a basic science immunology group spanning all of these clinical domains. In each group, experts were asked to consider recent accomplishments within their clinical domain in the last year and update the unmet needs in three categorical areas: basic/translational science, clinical science and therapeutic development, and clinical care. While progress was noted among some of previously identified needs, both new needs were identified and themes from prior meetings were re-iterated: the need for better understanding the heterogeneity within each disease, and for identifying preclinical states of disease allowing treatment and prevention of disease in those at risk, and the elusive ability to cure disease. Within the clinical care realm, improved comorbidity management and patient-centred care continue to be unmet needs, and the need for new and affordable therapeutics was highlighted. Unmet needs for new and accessible targeted therapies, disease prevention and ultimately cure remain a priority in rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE Mavrilimumab, a human monoclonal antibody, targets granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor α. We undertook to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of mavrilimumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients in 2 phase IIb studies (1071 and 1107) and in 1 open-label extension study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01712399). METHODS In study 1071, patients with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) received mavrilimumab (30, 100, or 150 mg) or placebo every other week plus methotrexate. In study 1107, patients with an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents and/or DMARDs received 100 mg mavrilimumab every other week or 50 mg golimumab every 4 weeks plus methotrexate. Patients entering the open-label extension study received 100 mg mavrilimumab every other week plus methotrexate. Long-term safety and efficacy of mavrilimumab were assessed. RESULTS A total of 442 patients received mavrilimumab (14 of 245 patients from study 1071, 9 of 70 patients from study 1107, and 52 of 397 patients from the open-label extension study discontinued mavrilimumab treatment throughout the studies). The cumulative safety exposure was 899 patient-years; the median duration of mavrilimumab treatment was 2.5 years (range 0.1-3.3 years). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were nasopharyngitis (n = 69; 7.68 per 100 patient-years) and bronchitis (n = 51; 5.68 per 100 patient-years). At weeks 74 and 104, 3.5% and 6.2% of patients, respectively, demonstrated reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, while 2.9% and 3.4% of patients, respectively, demonstrated reduction in forced vital capacity (>20% reduction from baseline to

Methotrexate (MTX) is known to improve blood levels and clinical outcome to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy by reducing the formation of antidrug antibodies.1 Recent findings indicate that MTX prevents immunisation against TNF inhibitors through de novo purine biosynthesis inhibition and generation of immunosuppressive adenosine.2 This effect is mediated by activation of MTX prodrug to MTX polyglutamates (MTXPG), and we previously reported that MTXPG levels were associated with improved steady state levels of infliximab.3 In this study, we extended these observations and evaluated the impact of MTXPG on adalimumab and etanercept levels. The study was cross-sectional by design, multicentred (three sites) and enrolled 169 consecutive consented adult rheumatoid arthritis subjects under MTX in combination with adalimumab (83 subjects) or etanercept (86 subjects). All patients enrolled were inadequate responders to MTX prior to starting anti-TNF therapy and had received MTX with anti-TNF therapy for least 3 months. At the time of a single visit, anticoagulated blood was collected randomly …