Search

Introduction: For chronic diseases such as axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and plaque psoriasis (PsO), treatment goals include remission or at least low disease activity (LDA) by 12 weeks. Improvements in symptoms such as pain and fatigue should also be treatment goals. Methods: ADEQUATE was a German, prospective, non-interventional study to evaluate the proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, PsA, axSpA, or PsO who, in routine clinical practice, benefit from the continuation of treatment with etanercept (ETN) beyond 12 weeks, even when their treatment goals have not yet been reached. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and changes in concomitant glucocorticoid use were also recorded. This article focuses on results for patients with axSpA and PsA; data for patients with PsO are described briefly. Results: In total, 305, 254, and 70 patients with axSpA, PsA, and PsO, respectively, were included. Rates of remission at week 12 and week 24, respectively, were 19% and 18% for axSpA, 38% and 51% for PsA, and 7% and 19% for PsO. Rates of LDA at week 12 and week 24, respectively, were 39% and 45% for axSpA, 50% and 60% for PsA, and 34% and 51% for PsO. Extending treatment up to 52 weeks was associated with stable rates of or further increases in remission and LDA rates. Improvements in pain, fatigue, and depression (axSpA, PsA, and PsO) and reductions in concomitant glucocorticoid use (axSpA and PsA) were observed. No new safety signals were detected. Conclusion: These findings confirm the effectiveness and safety of ETN in routine clinical practice for several indications and highlight potential benefits of continuing ETN treatment in patients who have not reached their treatment goals after 12 weeks. Additional benefits included improvements in PROs and reduction of concomitant glucocorticoids. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02486302. Plain Language Summary: Axial spondyloarthritis is a disorder that causes joint pain mainly in the spine and can cause deformation of the spine. Psoriatic arthritis and plaque psoriasis are disorders that cause dry, itchy, and raised skin patches. Psoriatic arthritis also causes swollen, stiff, and painful joints. Etanercept is a treatment used to reduce the symptoms of axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis. The aim of treatment is remission, or low disease activity after 12 weeks. In this study, people received etanercept for up to 52 weeks from their usual doctors in Germany. A total of 305 people with axial spondyloarthritis, 254 people with psoriatic arthritis, and 70 people with plaque psoriasis took part in the study. After 12 weeks of treatment, 19 in 100 people with axial spondyloarthritis were in remission and 39 in 100 people had low disease activity. In addition, 38 in 100 people with psoriatic arthritis were in remission and 50 in 100 people had low disease activity. Finally, 7 in 100 people with plaque psoriasis were in remission and 34 in 100 people had low disease activity. These numbers remained mostly stable until the end of the study. People also reported less pain, fatigue, and depression. Most people were able to use less glucocorticoids. The number and types of unwanted side effects were similar to those seen in other studies of etanercept in people with axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or plaque psoriasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal dose of rituximab in combination with leflunomide in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known. Methods: In Part 1 (previously reported) of the investigator-initiated AMARA study (EudraCT 2009-015950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01244958), improvements at week (W)24 were observed in patients randomized to rituximab + leflunomide compared with placebo + leflunomide. In the study reported here (Part 2), Part 1 responders received rituximab 500 or 1000 mg at W24/26 plus ongoing leflunomide. Patients were randomized at baseline to their eventual W24 treatment group. The Part 2 primary outcome was the mean Disease Activity Score-28 joints (DAS28) at W52, based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) analyses and a two-sided analysis of variance. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Eighty-three patients received rituximab at W24/26 (31 rituximab→rituximab 1000 mg; 29 rituximab→rituximab 500 mg; 10 placebo→rituximab 1000 mg; 13 placebo→rituximab 500 mg). At W52, there were no significant differences in DAS28 between rituximab doses in patients originally treated with rituximab or those originally treated with placebo. In the Part 1 placebo group, the higher rituximab dose was associated with greater improvements in ACR response rates and some PROs. Adverse events were similar regardless of rituximab dose. Conclusions: Retreatment with rituximab 500 mg and 1000 mg showed comparable efficacy, whereas an initial dose of rituximab 500 mg was associated with lower response rates versus 1000 mg. Reduced treatment response with the lower dose in patients initially treated with placebo may have been influenced by small numbers and baseline disease activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of rituximab + LEF in patients with RA. Methods In this investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients with an inadequate response to LEF who had failed one or more DMARD were randomly assigned 2:1 to i.v. rituximab 1000 mg or placebo on day 1 and 15 plus ongoing oral LEF. The primary efficacy outcome was the difference between ≥50% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR50 response) rates at week 24 (P  ≤ 0.025). Secondary endpoints included ACR20/70 responses, ACR50 responses at earlier timepoints and adverse event (AE) rates. The planned sample size was not achieved due to events beyond the investigators' control. Results Between 13 August 2010 and 28 January 2015, 140 patients received rituximab (n  = 93) or placebo (n  = 47) plus ongoing LEF. Rituximab + LEF resulted in an increase in the ACR50 response rate that was significant at week 16 (32 vs 15%; P  = 0.020), but not week 24 (27 vs 15%; P  = 0.081), the primary endpoint. Significant differences favouring the rituximab + LEF arm were observed in some secondary endpoints, including ACR20 rates from weeks 12 to 24. The rituximab and placebo arms had similar AE rates (71 vs 70%), but the rituximab arm had a higher rate of serious AEs (SAEs 20 vs 2%), primarily infections and musculoskeletal disorders. Conclusion The primary endpoint was not reached, but rituximab + LEF demonstrated clinical benefits vs LEF in secondary endpoints. Although generally well tolerated, the combination was associated with additional SAEs and requires monitoring. Trial registration EudraCT: 2009-015950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01244958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Effectiveness of Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Real-World Data from the German Non-interventional Study ADEQUATE with Focus on Treat-to-Target and Patient-Reported Outcomes." The correction states that there was an error in the citation information regarding Figure 2 in the original article. The incorrect references have been corrected. The article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. The contact information for the authors and the original article link are provided. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Inhibition of interleukin (IL)-1 represents a promising treatment option in adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD).Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of canakinumab in patients with AOSD and active joint involvement by means of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.Methods: Patients with AOSD and active joint involvement (tender and swollen joint counts of ≥4 each) were treated with canakinumab (4 mg/kg, maximum 300 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant reduction in disease activity at week 12 as determined by the change in disease activity score (ΔDAS28>1.2).Results: At enrolment, patients had high active disease with a mean DAS28(ESR) of 5.4 in the canakinumab and 5.3 in the placebo group, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 12 patients (67%) in the canakinumab group and 7 patients (41%) in the placebo group fulfilled the primary outcome criterion (p=0.18). In the per-protocol analysis, significantly higher American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 30% (61% vs 20%, p=0.033), ACR 50% (50% vs 6.7%, p=0.009) and ACR 70% (28% vs 0%, p=0.049) response rates were observed in the canakinumab group compared with the placebo group. Two patients in the canakinumab group experienced a serious adverse event.Conclusion: Although the study was terminated prematurely and the primary endpoint was not achieved, treatment with canakinumab led to an improvement of several outcome measures in AOSD. The overall safety findings were consistent with the known profile of canakinumab. Thus, our data support indication for IL-1 inhibition with canakinumab in AOSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, biological activity and safety of tregalizumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).Methods: 321 patients were randomised (1:1:1:1) to placebo or tregalizumab 25, 100 or 200 mg once-weekly subcutaneously in addition to MTX treatment. Responders at week 12 continued the same treatment, and non-responders at week 12 were escalated to the next higher tregalizumab dose level or re-randomised from placebo to active treatment. After 24 weeks, patients could continue treatment with tregalizumab for 24 weeks (extension phase). The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response rate at week 12. Safety and biological activity were monitored through week 48.Results: At week 12, ACR20 response rates were not statistically significantly different between placebo and any of the tregalizumab doses. Tregalizumab injections were well tolerated; most adverse events were mild to moderate and comparable among treatment and placebo groups. Biological activity was shown by dose-dependent CD4 downmodulation.Conclusion: Treatment with tregalizumab did not show significant clinical efficacy in patients with active RA compared with placebo but resulted in the expected biological effect on CD4 modulation. Tregalizumab was generally well tolerated, and no new safety findings were identified.Trial Registration Number: NCT01999192; Results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current EULAR guidelines state that biologic DMARD (bDMARD) therapy should be administered in combination with MTX or other conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD in RA. Nonetheless, a third of patients for whom a bDMARD agent is prescribed take it in the absence of concurrent csDMARD therapy. While the reasons underlying the low uptake of bDMARD-csDMARD combination therapy in clinical practice have not been well delineated, they may include poor adherence, contraindication to csDMARD therapy and adverse effects, as well as csDMARD withdrawal following remission. The challenges surrounding bDMARD therapy and the benefit/risk ratio of biologic monotherapy when compared with combination with a csDMARD will be discussed. We will provide insights into these important issues, as well as reviewing the evidence base differentiating biologic agents and exploring therapeutic options for patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom csDMARD therapy is contraindicated or discontinued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To use statistical methods to establish a threshold for individual response in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Methods: We used an analysis of variance model in patients on stable therapy (discovery cohort) to establish critical differences (dcrit ) for the minimum change associated with a significant individual patient response (beyond normal variation) in the PRO measures of pain (0-10), fatigue (0-10), and function (Funktionsfragebogen Hannover questionnaire; 0-100). We then evaluated PRO responses in patients initiating adalimumab in a noninterventional study (treatment cohort).Results: In the discovery cohort (n = 700), PROs showed excellent long-term retest reliability. The minimum change that exceeded random fluctuation was conservatively determined to be 3 points for pain, 4 points for fatigue, and 16 points for function. In the treatment cohort (n = 2,788), 1,483 patients (53.2%) achieved a significant individual therapeutic response as assessed by Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)-dcrit (≥1.8 points) after 12 months of adalimumab treatment; 68.5% of patients with a DAS28-dcrit response achieved a significant improvement in pain, whereas approximately 40% achieved significant improvements in fatigue or function. Significant improvements in all 3 PROs occurred in 22.7% of patients; 22.8% did not have any significant PRO responses. In contrast, significant improvements in all 3 PROs occurred in only 4.4% of 1,305 patients who did not achieve a DAS28-dcrit response at month 12, and 59.1% did not achieve any significant PRO responses.Conclusion: The establishment of critical differences in PROs distinguishes true responses from random variation and provides insights into appropriate patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated a combined physician and patient questionnaire designed for identifying early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) in a cohort of 220 patients supposed for admission to an early arthritis clinic (EAC). The documents including personal and basis demographic data, referral diagnosis, questions related to RA and SpA classification criteria, functional limitations and previous diagnostic and therapeutic attempts were fax-transmitted to referring practices and returned before first EAC appointment. 125 referrals before introduction of the questionnaire served as controls. We found that a functional impairment of the hands provided more accurate prediction of RA than reports on morning stiffness or joint swelling. No clinical data proved predictive for SpA. We observed an unintended increase in the prescription of analgesics/NSAID and corticosteroids. In conclusion, questionnaires as designed here may provide substantial information for diagnosis of RA, but also imply the risk of unmeant therapeutic attempts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original version of this article was published without open access. With the author(s)' decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014–000555–93). Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9–45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04–0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04–0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study. 6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase. Innovative Medicine Initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]