Search

Objectives: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field., Methods: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items., Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high., Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DA: grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Roche and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Genzyme; MA: honoraria from AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, HEXAL, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB; JA: grants from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, UCB; AB: grants from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Biogen, Sandoz, Celltrion, Nordic, Gilead; JWJB: honoraria from Lilly, Roche, Sanofi; MB: honoraria from BMS, Teva, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK; AdB: grants from Abbvie, Biogen, Celltrion and honoraria from Abbvie, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Fresenius, MSD, Roche.MHB has received grants from Pfizer, Roche and UCB and consulting fees from Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Merck.Serono, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi; GB: grants from Abbvie, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB and honoraria from Abbvie, Celgene, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche. FB: grants from Abbvie, BMS, Horizon, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Sanofi and honoraria from Abbvie, Galapagos, Horizon, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, BMS, MSD, Lilly; RC: honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB; MC; honoraria from Abbvie, Astellas, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer and Roche; DDC: no conflict; CC: honoraria from AbbVie, Accord Healthcare, Alfasigma, Berlin Chemie, Egis, Eli Lilly, Ewopharma, Genesis, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB; MD: grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Novartis and honoraria from Pfizer, Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, BMS, Celgene, Biogen, Sandoz; CJE: grants from Abbvie, Biogen and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Fresenius, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Mundipharma, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB; PE: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Samsung, Lilly and honoraria from AbbVie, Novartis, BMS, Gilead, Samsung, Lilly; AF: grants from BMS, Pfizer and honoraria from AB2 BIO, Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi; LG: grants from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, UCB and honoraria from Abbvie, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB; J-EG: grants from BMS, Pfizer and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, UCB; MLH: grants from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, MSD, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Samsung, UCB; TH: grants from Lilly, Merck, UCB, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Galapagos, Boeringher and honoraria from Abblynx, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Crescendo Bioscience, Galapagos, Lilly; AK: honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Celgene, MSD; MK: no conflicts of interest; RBML: honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, UCB and Director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV; XM: honoraria from BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Samsung, UCB; IBM: grants from Astra Zeneca, UCB, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Compugen, Boehringer, Celgene and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Causeway, Lilly, Leo, Novimmune; EM: grants from Pfizer, Lilly, BMS, AbbVie, GSK, Astra and honoraria from Pfizer, BMS, Roche, Lilly, AbbVie, Gemma, Sanofi; TWJH: grants from Eli Lilly, Merck, UCB, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Galapagos, Boehringer and honoraria from Abblynx, Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer, Crescendo-Bioscience, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Nycomed, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, UCB; ZL: no conflicts of interest; UM-L: honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Chugai, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer, Actelion, Medac, Lilly; GP: no conflicts of interest; JP: grants from BMS, Merck, UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Bayer, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB; AR-R: honoraria from Abbvie, Chugai, BMS, Sanofi, Roche, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Celgene, MSD, UCB; AR-W: grants from Pfizer, Abbvie and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, UCB; KS: grants from Amgen, Ironwood/AstraZeneca, Horizon, SOBI, Takeda and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Ironwood/AstraZeneca, Bayer, Gilead, Horizon, Kowa, Radius, Roche/Genentech, SOBI, Takeda, Teijin; MSV: no conflicts of interest. AS: honoraria from Novartis; JSS: grants from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB; AS: grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal AG Lilly, MSD Sharp & Dome, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche; TT: grants from AbbVie, Asahikasei, Astellas, AYUMI, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nipponkayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and honoraria from AbbVie, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, Diaichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nipponkayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Teijin, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, UCB; DvdH: grants from UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB and Director Imaging Rheumatology BV; YvE-H: honoraria from Celgene; RFvV: grants from BMS, GSK, Lilly, UCB and honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB; RW: grants from Roche, BMS and honoraria from Celltrion, Galapagos-Gilead; MdW: honoraria from 'Stichting Tools', Janssen-Cilag., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis is highly prevalent. It is correlated only weakly with disease activity but more so with pain, mood, personality features, poor sleep, obesity and comorbidities. Fatigue can be measured by many standardised questionnaires and more easily with a Visual Analogue Scale or numeric rating scale. Most patients with RA have some fatigue, and at least one in six have severe fatigue. Chronic pain and depressed mood are also common in RA patients with significant fatigue. It affects function and quality of life and is worse on average in women. Evidence-based treatment for fatigue includes treatment of underlying disease activity (with on average modest improvement of fatigue), exercise programmes and supervised self-management programmes with cognitive-behavioural therapy, mindfulness and reinforcement (such as reminders). The specific programmes for exercise and behavioural interventions are not standardised. Some medications cause fatigue such as methotrexate. More research is needed to understand fatigue and how to treat this common complex symptom in RA that can be the worst symptom for some patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Emerald, Genzyme, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB; RCTs: Bayer, BMS, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Riociguat is approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension and has antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects in animal models of tissue fibrosis. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of riociguat in patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) at high risk of skin fibrosis progression., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb trial, adults with dcSSc of <18 months' duration and a modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) 10-22 units received riociguat 0.5 mg to 2.5 mg orally three times daily (n=60) or placebo (n=61). The primary endpoint was change in mRSS from baseline to week 52., Results: At week 52, change from baseline in mRSS units was -2.09±5.66 (n=57) with riociguat and -0.77±8.24 (n=52) with placebo (difference of least squares means -2.34 (95% CI -4.99 to 0.30; p=0.08)). In patients with interstitial lung disease, forced vital capacity declined by 2.7% with riociguat and 7.6% with placebo. At week 14, average Raynaud's condition score had improved ≥50% in 19 (41.3%)/46 patients with riociguat and 13 (26.0%)/50 patients with placebo. Safety assessments showed no new signals with riociguat and no treatment-related deaths., Conclusions: Riociguat did not significantly benefit mRSS versus placebo at the predefined p<0.05. Secondary and exploratory analyses showed potential efficacy signals that should be tested in further trials. Riociguat was well tolerated., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DK reports personal fees from Actelion, grants and personal fees from Bayer AG, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants from Pfizer, personal fees from Arena, personal fees from Eclos Sciences, Inc, personal fees from BI, personal fees from Arena, personal fees from CSL Behring, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Galapagos, personal fees from Genentech/Roche, personal fees from Corbus, personal fees from Cytori, grants from Horizon, outside the submitted work. OD reports other from Actelion, other from Bayer, other from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from Mitsubishi Tanabe, other from AnaMar, other from ChemonAb, other from espeRare Foundation, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GSK, other from Inventiva, other from Italfarmaco, other from iQvia, other from Lilly, other from Medac, other from MedImmune, other from Pharmacyclics, other from Novartis, other from Pfizer, other from Sanofi, other from Serodapharm, other from UCB, other from Amgen, other from AbbVie, other from Mepha, other from MSD, outside the submitted work. YA reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer AG, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants from Inventiva, personal fees from BI, grants from Roche, grants from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. CPD reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer AG, grants and personal fees from Inventiva, personal fees from BI, personal fees from Roche-Genentech, personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, grants and personal fees from CSL Behring, grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. MK reports grants and personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer AG, personal fees from Chugai, personal fees from BI, personal fees from Reata, personal fees from Corpus, personal fees from CSL Behring, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Mochida, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Nippon Shinyaku, outside the submitted work. MMC reports grants and personal fees from Actelion, grants from Chemomab, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants from Sanipedia, personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. JEP reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer AG, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Sandoz, personal fees from UCB, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. TA reports grants and personal fees from Astellas, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Mitsubishi Tanabe, grants and personal fees from Chugai, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, grants from Otuska, grants from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants from Alexion, grants from Bayer, grants from Eisai, grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants from Asahi Kasei, personal fees from Ono, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. LC reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer AG, personal fees from BI, personal fees from Roche-Genentech, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Medac, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EH reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Actelion, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer AG, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. TI reports personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, personal fees from Chugai, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Bristol-Myers, personal fees from Mitsubishi Tanabe, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Asahi Kasei, personal fees from Ono Pharmaceutical, personal fees from Ayumi Pharmaceutical, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Virginia Steen reports participation in advisory boards, consultancy for economics of scleroderma management, and clinical trials for Bayer; investigator-initiated grant, advisory board, and steering committee (consulting) for CSL Behring; advisory board and site primary investigator (PI) of clinical trial for Roche; site PI of clinical trial for Sanofi; site PI of clinical trial for Immune Tolerance Network; and DSMB for open labs phase 2 trial and site PI for the phase 3 trial for Corbus. ME-T reports consulting fees, speaking fees and honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, outside the submitted work. MW reports employment from Bayer AG, outside the submitted work. KL reports other from StatFinn Oy, outside the submitted work. JdOP reports other from Bayer AG, outside the submitted work. ZY reports other from Bayer HealthCare, outside the submitted work. FK reports other from Bayer AG, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To quantify population-level and practice-level encounters with rheumatologists over time., Methods: We conducted a population-based study from 2000 to 2015 in Ontario, Canada, where all residents are covered by a single-payer healthcare system. Annual total number of unique patients seen by rheumatologists, the number of new patients seen, and total number of encounters with rheumatologists were identified., Results: From 2000 to 2015, the percentage of the population seen by rheumatologists was constant over time (2.7%). During this time, Ontario had a stable supply of rheumatologists (0.8 full-time equivalents/75,000). From 2000 to 2015, the number of annual rheumatology encounters increased from 561,452 to 786,061, but the adjusted encounter rates remained stable over time (at 62 encounters per 1000 population). New patient assessment rates declined over time from 10 new outpatient assessments per 1000 in 2000 to 6 per 1000 in 2015. The crude volume of new patients seen annually decreased and an increasing proportion of rheumatology encounters were with established patients. We observed a shift in patient case mix over time, with more assessments for systemic inflammatory conditions. Rheumatologists' practice volumes, practice sizes, and the annual number of days providing clinical care decreased over time., Conclusion: Over a 15-year period, the annual percentage of the population seen by a rheumatologist remained constant and the volume of new patients decreased, while followup patient encounters increased. Patient encounters per rheumatologist decreased over time. Our findings provide novel information for rheumatology workforce planning. Factors affecting clinical activity warrant further research.

Strides have been made in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension and interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis, with successful trials of combination therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension and of new drugs that slow the decline of lung function in interstitial lung disease. However, many trials in patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis have been negative, including trials of tocilizumab, abatacept, and riociguat, despite improvements in skin scores and other endpoints that approached statistical significance. Trials of macitentan for digital ulcers in these patients have also been disappointing. Trials that do not meet their primary endpoint do not necessarily signify ineffective therapies, as there are many other possible reasons for negative trial results, including features of trial design, insufficient trial duration, or insufficient power to detect differences between groups. In this Series paper, I discuss some of these reasons and what the research community can learn from negative trials to inform future trial design going forward., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine whether skin score changes are associated with changes in overall disease severity, function and quality of life in early dcSSc patients., Methods: A total of 154 and 128 dcSSc patients from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group database with 1 and 2 year follow-up and a disease duration ⩽5 years without end-stage organ damage and/or significant comorbidity at the initial visit were included. Skin was assessed using the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) and disease severity by the summed Medsger disease severity score (DSS) (without skin domain), physician and patient global assessments, function [HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI)] and quality of life [36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS)]. Analyses were repeated in patients with a disease duration ⩽3 years., Results: At 2 years, 64 (50%) patients had improved skin (mRSS decrease of ⩾5 points and/or ⩾25%). Skin improvers had improved summed DSS (P = 0.002); better physician global assessments of disease activity, severity and damage (all P ⩽ 0.003); better HAQ-DI (P = 0.001) and SF-36 PCS (P = 0.005). Changes in the mRSS were positively correlated with changes in summed DSS (P = 0.006) and other disease outcomes. In the 26 (20.3%) patients with worsened skin (mRSS increase of ⩾5 points and/or ⩾25%), the summed DSS and physician global assessments were worse (P = 0.01 and P ⩽ 0.009, respectively). In the subgroup with a disease duration ⩽3 years, similar associations were found., Conclusion: At 1 and 2 years, overall disease improvement parallels skin improvement in early dcSSc. This is important for prognosis and reflects the value of mRSS as an outcome measure in trials with these patients., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Spinal cord stimulation has been an established treatment for chronic back and leg pain for more than 50 years; however, outcomes are variable and unpredictable, and objective evidence of the mechanism of action is needed. A novel spinal cord stimulation system provides the first in vivo, real-time, continuous objective measure of spinal cord activation in response to therapy via recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in patients during daily use. These ECAPs are also used to optimise programming and deliver closed-loop spinal cord stimulation by adjusting the stimulation current to maintain activation within patients' therapeutic window. We aimed to examine pain relief and the extent of spinal cord activation with ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain., Methods: This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial was done at 13 specialist clinics, academic centres, and hospitals in the USA. Patients with chronic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score ≥60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score 41-80) who were refractory to conservative therapy, on stable pain medications, had no previous experience with spinal cord stimulation, and were appropriate candidates for a spinal cord stimulation trial were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (investigational group) or fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks of size 4 and 6 and stratified by site. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain with no increase in pain medications. Non-inferiority (δ=10%) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analysis) and 12 months (additional prespecified analysis) after the permanent implant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924129, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Feb 21, 2017, and Feb 20, 2018, 134 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (67 to each treatment group). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3 months (62 in the closed-loop group and 63 in the open-loop group) and 118 patients at 12 months (59 in the closed-loop group and 59 in the open-loop group). The primary outcome was achieved in a greater proportion of patients in the closed-loop group than in the open-loop group at 3 months (51 [82·3%] of 62 patients vs 38 [60·3%] of 63 patients; difference 21·9%, 95% CI 6·6-37·3; p=0·0052) and at 12 months (49 [83·1%] of 59 patients vs 36 [61·0%] of 59 patients; difference 22·0%, 6·3-37·7; p=0·0060). We observed no differences in safety profiles between the two groups. The most frequently reported study-related adverse events in both groups were lead migration (nine [7%] patients), implantable pulse generator pocket pain (five [4%]), and muscle spasm or cramp (three [2%])., Interpretation: ECAP-controlled closed-loop stimulation provided significantly greater and more clinically meaningful pain relief up to 12 months than open-loop spinal cord stimulation. Greater spinal cord activation seen in the closed-loop group suggests a mechanistic explanation for the superior results, which aligns with the putative mechanism of action for spinal cord stimulation and warrants further investigation., Funding: Saluda Medical., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the trial success rate between anatomic lead placement (AP) and paresthesia-mapped (PM) lead placement techniques for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern., Materials and Methods: Eligible patients with back and/or leg pain with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥6 who had not undergone previous SCS were enrolled in the study. A total of 270 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment arm. In the AP group, one lead tip was placed at the mid-body of T8, and the other at the superior endplate of T9. In the PM group, physicians confirmed coverage of the patient's primary pain location. Trial success was a composite of the following: ≥50% patient-reported pain relief at the end of the minimum three-day trial period, physician's recommendation, and patient's interest in a permanent implant., Results: Trial success for AP vs. PM groups was equivalent to 84.4% and 82.3%, respectively. Physicians who performed both techniques preferred AP technique (70% vs. 30%). Procedure times for placement of two leads were 31% shorter in the AP group (p < 0.0001). Decrease in the mean NRS pain score was similar between groups (53.2%, AP group; 53.8%, PM group, p = 0.79). Trial success for patients who went on to an extended trial with tonic stimulation was 50% (5/10) vs. 79% (11/14) for AP group and PM group, respectively (p = 0.2). A total of 13 adverse events were observed (4.5%), most commonly lead migrations and pain around implant site, with no difference between groups., Conclusions: When using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern, anatomic or PM lead placement technique may be used. Nonresponders to subthreshold stimulation had a higher conversion rate when a PM technique was used. AP resulted in shorter procedure times with a similar safety profile and was strongly preferred by trialing physicians., (© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Purpose of Review: The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in uncertainty for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases for several reasons. They are concerned about their risk of developing COVID-19 as many are immune suppressed from their disease and/or treatment, whether they should stop their advanced therapies, if they will have a worse outcome if/when infected due to their underlying medication condition(s) and if they will have drug availability, especially with press (without much data) coverage suggesting hydroxychloroquine may be used in COVID-19 infection causing diversion of medication supply. This article discusses how the pandemic affects people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases., Recent Findings: Preliminarily, articles seem to suggest that patients with rheumatic diseases may not have more infections from SARS-CoV-2 and similar outcomes to age and gender matched patients, but fear of rheumatic medications increasing their risk, drug shortages, and work exposure all are concerns for patients., Recent Findings: The long term effects of the pandemic in patients with rheumatic diseases will not be known until much later and likely include stressors flaring disease (fear, illness, job loss, social isolation), post-traumatic stress, flaring due to stopping medications, less physician visits with subsequent under-treatment, and increases in chronic concomitant fatigue, pain, fibromyalgia., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe author declares that she has no conflict of interest., (© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020.)

Objective: T cells play a key role in the pathogenesis of early systemic sclerosis. This study was undertaken to assess the safety and efficacy of abatacept in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc)., Methods: In this 12-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or matching placebo, stratified by duration of dcSSc. Escape therapy was allowed at 6 months for worsening disease. The coprimary end points were change in the modified Rodnan skin thickness score (MRSS) compared to baseline and safety over 12 months. Differences in longitudinal outcomes were assessed according to treatment using linear mixed models, with outcomes censored after initiation of escape therapy. Skin tissue obtained from participants at baseline was classified into intrinsic gene expression subsets., Results: Among 88 participants, the adjusted mean change in the MRSS at 12 months was -6.24 units for those receiving abatacept and -4.49 units for those receiving placebo, with an adjusted mean treatment difference of -1.75 units (P = 0.28). Outcomes for 2 secondary measures (Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index and a composite measure) were clinically and statistically significantly better with abatacept. The proportion of subjects in whom escape therapy was needed was higher in the placebo group relative to the abatacept group (36% versus 16%). In the inflammatory and normal-like skin gene expression subsets, decline in the MRSS over 12 months was clinically and significantly greater in the abatacept group versus the placebo group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). In the abatacept group, adverse events occurred in 35 participants versus 40 participants in the placebo group, including 2 deaths and 1 death, respectively., Conclusion: In this phase II trial, abatacept was well-tolerated, but change in the MRSS was not statistically significant. Secondary outcome measures, including gene expression subsets, showed evidence in support of abatacept. These data should be confirmed in a phase III trial., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) is used to describe a symptom complex caused by digital vascular compromise. RP is a clinical diagnosis. The typically episodic nature of RP has resulted in a reliance upon patient self-report for diagnosis. The term 'primary RP' is generally applied when no underlying pathology can be demonstrated. Whilst 'primary RP' is currently considered a distinct disorder, there is evidence that the term may comprise several entities that include a functional vasospastic disorder, a physiologically appropriate thermoregulatory response, subclinical atherosclerosis and 'cold intolerance'. Optimal management may differ depending on cause. The term 'secondary RP' encompasses a broad range of rheumatological, haematological, endocrinological and vascular pathology. RP can range from relatively benign but intrusive vasospasm, to the progressive obliterative microangiopathy of systemic sclerosis (SSc), in which severe digital ischaemia can threaten tissue viability. SSc has formed the focus of much of the research into RP but, consistent with most medical symptom complexes, the aetiopathogenesis of RP varies greatly dependent on cause. Vasospasm within the digital macro- and microvasculature occurs in SSc, but digital ischaemia is further compounded by a progressive obliterative microangiopathy. Recent work exploring the patient experience of SSc-RP is challenging the 'episodic' paradigm of 'Raynaud's', with important implications for clinical trials utilising diary-based patient-reported outcome instruments for assessing Raynaud's symptoms. This review shall examine the causes, pathogenesis, clinical features, classification and management of RP. A practical approach to the evaluation and management of RP is outlined, highlighting important knowledge gaps and unmet research needs where applicable. Key Points • Raynaud's phenomenon is a symptom complex related to digital vascular compromise secondary to broad-ranging pathology. • Raynaud's phenomenon, as currently classified, likely encompasses a number of aetiopathogenic processes. • Raynaud's phenomenon causes significant disease-related morbidity in autoimmune rheumatic diseases such as systemic sclerosis.

Objectives: This was a sub-analysis of the ACCURATE clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy and necessity of targeting paresthesia coverage of painful areas with dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation vs. tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS)., Materials and Methods: On diagrams of the torso and lower limbs, subjects marked where they felt pain at baseline and paresthesias at three months postimplant. Seventy-five subjects (41 DRG and 34 SCS) with diagrams of sufficient quality were scanned, digitized, and included in this analysis. Subject completed diagrams were digitized and superimposed with a grid of 1398 squares. Quantification of the percentage of bodily areas affected by pain and stimulation induced paresthesias was performed., Results: The percent of painful areas covered by paresthesia was significantly lower for DRG subjects than for SCS subjects (13% vs. 28% of the painful regions, p < 0.05), possibly because significantly more DRG subjects felt no paresthesia during stimulation when compared to SCS subjects (13/41 DRG vs. 3/34 SCS) (p < 0.05). The amount of paresthesia produced outside the painful areas (unrequired paresthesia) was significantly lower in DRG subjects than that of SCS subjects. On average, the percent of unrequired paresthesia was only 20% of the subjects' total painful body surface area in the DRG group compared to 210% in the SCS group (p < 0.01)., Conclusions: The results of this ACCURATE study sub-analysis show that DRG stimulation produces paresthesias, on average, that are less frequent, less intense, with a smaller footprint on the body and less dependent on positional changes., (© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society.)

The use of immunosuppressive therapies for immune-mediated disease (IMD) is associated with an elevated risk of infections and related comorbidities. While many infectious diseases can generally be prevented by vaccines, immunization rates in this specific patient population remain suboptimal, due in part to uncertainty about their efficacy or safety under these clinical situations. To address this concern, a multidisciplinary group of Canadian physicians with expertise in dermatology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases and rheumatology developed evidence-based clinical guidelines on vaccinations featuring 13 statements that are aimed at reducing the risk of preventable infections in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive agents., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.)

Objectives: This meta-analysis investigated the frequency and type of ocular involvement in juvenile inflammatory arthritis (JIA) and other juvenile rheumatic diseases., Methods: Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to September 2018 to identify publications related to juvenile arthritis and rheumatic diseases, which reported frequency of Uveitis in juvenile rheumatic conditions and contained at least 20 patients. The prevalence and type of eye complications were extracted, and random effects models estimated their frequency. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I 2 ., Results: In total, 7132 unique citations resulted in 59 articles included. Pooled frequency of uveitis was: 24% in oligoarticular JIA, 12% in polyarticular JIA, 1% in systemic JIA, 50% in pediatric Bechet's, 9% in juvenile psoriatic arthritis, 24% in juvenile spondyloarthropathy and 5% in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. The most common uveitis in JIA was anterior uveitis, which occurred in 14%; also described as iridocyclitis in 10% of patients. Publication bias was negligible for all conditions except those with few reported studies (juvenile SLE and systemic JIA). Uveitis in JIA was more common in Europe (14%), North America (11%) and the Middle East (12%) than East Asia (7%) and Oceania (3%)., Conclusions: Ocular involvement (mostly uveitis) in juvenile inflammatory arthritis and other pediatric rheumatic diseases varied between 3% and 50% depending on the underlying condition; and was highest in pediatric Bechet's. In JIA, the highest frequency of uveitis was in oligoarticular JIA; with anterior uveitis being the most frequent type of uveitis. There was variation geographically for uveitis in JIA., (Copyright © 2019 Société française de rhumatologie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: This multicenter incident cohort aimed to characterize how often early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) patients self-report episodic joint inflammation (palindromic rheumatism) preceding ERA diagnosis and which characteristics differentiate these patients from those without prior episodic symptoms., Methods: Data were from patients with early confirmed or suspected RA (more than 6 weeks and less than 12 months) enrolled in the Canadian Early ArThritis CoHort (CATCH) between April 2017 to March 2018 who completed study case report forms assessing joint pain and swelling prior to ERA diagnosis. Chi-square and t tests were used to compare characteristics of patients with and without self-reported episodic joint inflammation prior to ERA diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic and clinical measures associated with past episodic joint inflammation around the time of ERA diagnosis., Results: A total of 154 ERA patients were included; 66% were female, and mean (SD) age and RA symptom duration were 54 (15) years and 141 (118) days. Sixty-five (42%) ERA patients reported a history of episodic joint pain and swelling, half of whom reported that these symptoms preceded ERA diagnosis by over 6 months. ERA patients with past episodic joint inflammation were more often female, had higher income, were seropositive, had more comorbidities, fewer swollen joints, and lower Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) around the time of ERA diagnosis ( P < 0.05). These associations remained significant in multivariable regression adjusting for other sociodemographic and RA clinical measures., Conclusion: Almost half of ERA patients experienced episodic joint inflammation prior to ERA diagnosis. These patients were more often female, had higher income, and presented with milder disease activity at ERA diagnosis., (© 2019 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: The approach to intrathecal (IT) drug delivery malfunction is complicated, particularly for iodine-allergic patients. In these situations, the current literature has not addressed the use of IT gadolinium. Case reports exist showing severe neurotoxic manifestations with IT gadolinium use. We sought to provide a resource for chronic pain physicians treating an iodine-allergic patient and considering the use of IT gadolinium., Methods: A thorough literature search identified 11 published cases of gadolinium-induced neurotoxicity due to IT injection and those cases are described in detail. The literature was also reviewed for safe dosages of IT gadolinium., Results: After thorough review, a safe IT gadolinium dose is provided. Additionally, an algorithm was developed for the workup of an IT pump malfunction in iodine allergic patients., Conclusion: Herein, we provide guidance on IT gadolinium usage and a framework for IT pump malfunction in iodine allergic patients., (© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may experience residual pain and functional impairment despite good control of disease activity. This study compared improvements in pain and physical function in patients with well-controlled RA after 24 weeks' treatment with baricitinib, adalimumab or placebo in the 52-week RA-BEAM phase III study. Adults with active RA and inadequate response to methotrexate received baricitinib 4 mg once daily, adalimumab 40 mg every two weeks or placebo, with background methotrexate. Patients ( N = 1010) were categorised as in remission, in remission or low disease activity, or not in remission or low disease activity at week 24. For patients in remission or low disease activity ( n = 310), improvements in mean pain and physical function scores at week 24 were significantly greater with baricitinib than placebo ( p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively) and adalimumab ( p < 0.05 for both). For both outcomes, differences between adalimumab and placebo were not significant. The proportions of patients in remission or low disease activity with minimal or no pain and with normalised physical function were numerically greater with baricitinib than placebo. Baricitinib 4 mg once daily provided enhanced improvement in pain and physical function in patients with well-controlled RA, suggesting it may produce effects beyond immunomodulation.

Introduction: To explore the relationship of pain and fatigue with daily activity and work productivity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from the baricitinib clinical trial, RA-BEAM., Methods: In RA-BEAM, a double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomized 3:3:2 to placebo (n = 488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n = 330) with background methotrexate. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) measured fatigue and the pain visual analog scale (0-100 mm) assessed pain. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA measured daily activity and work productivity. At weeks 12 and 24, pain was assessed using pain reduction (< 30%, 30% to < 50%, ≥ 50%) and overall pain score; clinically relevant FACIT-F changes were assessed by values < 3.56 and ≥ 3.56 and the FACIT-F normative value score (< 40.1, ≥ 40.1). Pairwise comparisons between pain/fatigue reduction groups were assessed using ANCOVA with pooled data on daily activity and work productivity. A mediator analysis with pain, fatigue, and disease activity measured their contribution to daily activity and work productivity. Data were pooled from all patients for most analyses, and baricitinib-treated patients were assessed as a sensitivity analysis., Results: Reductions in pain (≥ 50%) and fatigue (≥ 3.56) had significant (p ≤ 0.001) effects on daily activity and work productivity improvement at weeks 12 and 24. Reductions in pain, fatigue, and disease activity accounted for most of the improvements in daily activity and work productivity. At the lowest levels of remaining pain (≤ 10 mm) at weeks 12 and 24, however, fatigue did not appear to impact work productivity. Similar trends were observed with baricitinib-treated patients., Conclusions: Reductions in pain and fatigue were associated with improved daily activity and work productivity for all RA patients and for baricitinib-treated patients in RA-BEAM., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01710358., Funding: Incyte Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company.

Objectives: Mortality and worsening of organ function are desirable endpoints for clinical trials in systemic sclerosis (SSc). The aim of this study was to identify factors that allow enrichment of patients with these endpoints, in a population of patients from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database., Methods: Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of diffuse SSc and follow-up over 12±3 months. Disease worsening/organ progression was fulfilled if any of the following events occurred: new renal crisis; decrease of lung or heart function; new echocardiography-suspected pulmonary hypertension or death. In total, 42 clinical parameters were chosen as predictors for the analysis by using (1) imputation of missing data on the basis of multivariate imputation and (2) least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression., Results: Of 1451 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 706 had complete data on outcome parameters and were included in the analysis. Of the 42 outcome predictors, eight remained in the final regression model. There was substantial evidence for a strong association between disease progression and age, active digital ulcer (DU), lung fibrosis, muscle weakness and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level. Active DU, CRP elevation, lung fibrosis and muscle weakness were also associated with a significantly shorter time to disease progression. A bootstrap validation step with 10 000 repetitions successfully validated the model., Conclusions: The use of the predictive factors presented here could enable cohort enrichment with patients at risk for overall disease worsening in SSc clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MOB declares no conflict of interest. OD has had consultancy relationships with Actelion, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, espeRare foundation, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Inventiva, Italfarmaco, Lilly, medac, MedImmune, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sinoxa and UCB in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications. OD has received research funding from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Roche in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications. OD has a patent for mir-29 licensed for the treatment of systemic sclerosis. DK has consultancy relationships and/or has received grant/research support from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, NIH, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, ChemomAb, Corbus, Covis, Cytori, Eicos, EMD Serono, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB Pharma. He is a shareholder of Eicos. CPD has consultancy relationships with and/or has received speakers’ bureau fees from Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Bayer AG, GlaxoSmithKline, CSL Behring, Merck Serono, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Biogen IDEC Inc., Inventiva, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim. JEP has consultancy relationships with and/or has received grant/research support from Actelion, Bayer AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer Inc. and Roche. MM-C has consultancy relationships and/or has received grant/research support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, UCB Pharma, Bayer, ChemomAb, Genentech/Roche, Inventiva and Lilly. YA has consultancy relationships with and/or has received grant/research support from Actelion, Pharmaceuticals US, Bayer AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inventiva, Medac, Pfizer Inc., Roche Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Biogen IDEC Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Servier. JdOP and JC are employees of Bayer. NTG has nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) prevalence in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) is conflicting. The impact of sex, including menopause, has not been described. We estimated the prevalence and factors associated with MetS in men and women with ERA., Methods: A cross-sectional study of the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) was performed. Participants with baseline data to estimate key MetS components were included. Sex-stratified logistic regression identified baseline variables associated with MetS., Results: The sample included 1543 participants; 71% were female and the mean age was 54 (SD 15) years. MetS prevalence was higher in men 188 (42%) than women 288 (26%, P < 0.0001) and increased with age. Frequent MetS components in men were hypertension (62%), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT, 40%), obesity (36%), and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (36%). Postmenopausal women had greater frequency of hypertension (65%), IGT (32%), and high triglycerides (21%) compared with premenopausal women ( P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, MetS was negatively associated with seropositivity and pulmonary disease in men. Increasing age was associated with MetS in women. In postmenopausal women, corticosteroid use was associated with MetS. Psychiatric comorbidity was associated with MetS in premenopausal women. MetS status was not explained by disease activity or core RA measures., Conclusion: The characteristics and associations of MetS differed in men and women with ERA. Sex differences, including postmenopausal status, should be considered in comorbidity screening. With this knowledge, the interplay of MetS, sex, and RA therapeutic response on cardiovascular outcomes should be investigated., (© 2019 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To characterize rheumatologists' perspectives on evolving trends of reactive arthritis (ReA)., Methods: After ethics approval, 548 members of the Canadian Rheumatology Association were surveyed with 37 questions covering their demographic information, subspecialty, level of experience, practice setting and opinions on prevalence, treatment, and causes of ReA. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics., Results: Ninety-seven responded to the survey (18% response rate); 66 fully completed it. Nearly half of respondents believed that the incidence of ReA is declining and causes of ReA may be changing. Physicians reported that most of the ReA cases in their practices were caused by an unknown organism, sexually transmitted, or gastrointestinal infection. Full triad ReA increased the chance of recurrence according to their impressions. Common investigations in ReA included inflammatory markers, HLA-B27, chlamydia and gonorrhea testing, stool cultures, synovial fluid analyses, SI joint imaging. ReA treatment included NSAIDs, intra-articular corticosteroid injections, and DMARDs. Two-thirds said they used TNF alpha inhibitors in chronic ReA occasionally or more frequently., Conclusion: ReA may be decreasing in frequency and severity in Canada. Changes could be due to less food borne illness, cleaner water, or more rapid treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The cause is often unknown in clinical practice.Key Points• Reactive arthritis (ReA) is likely decreasing in prevalence and severity.• Patients with classic trial of arthritis, urethritis, and conjunctivitis are more likely to have recurrent and/or chronic ReA.• The causal organisms are often not detected and seem to be changing over time.

The use of immunosuppressive therapies for immune-mediated disease is associated with an elevated risk of infections and related comorbidities. While many infectious diseases can generally be prevented by vaccines, immunization rates in this specific patient population remain suboptimal, due in part to uncertainty about their efficacy or safety under these clinical situations. To address this concern, a multidisciplinary group of Canadian physicians with expertise in dermatology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases, and rheumatology developed evidence-based clinical guidelines on vaccinations featuring 13 statements that are aimed at reducing the risk of preventable infections in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents.

Raynaud's phenomenon is nearly universal in systemic sclerosis. Vasculopathy is part of systemic sclerosis. Raynaud's phenomenon can cause of complications and impairment, especially when tissue ischemia and digital ulcers develop. There are many treatment options for Raynaud's phenomenon in systemic sclerosis often with sparse data and few robust studies comparing the different treatment options. Recommendations from guidelines usually include calcium channel blockers as first-line pharmacological treatment. In the clinical setting, multiple variables such as financial factors, geography where access to medications varies, and patient factors, baseline hypotension, can influence the treatment for Raynaud's phenomenon and digital ulcers. Prostacyclins and PDE-5 inhibitors are reserved for more severe Raynaud's phenomenon or healing of digital ulcers. Prevention of digital ulcers may also include endothelin receptor blocker (bosentan) in some countries. Other treatments had less consensus. Algorithms developed by systemic sclerosis experts might be helpful in deciding which treatment to choose for each setting, using a step-wise strategy, which intends to complement guidelines. This review focuses on a practical approach to the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon and digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis, based on algorithms designed by systemic sclerosis experts using consensus, and we review the evidence that supports treatment from initial to second and third-line options., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: E.C-R. received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. A.F-C. received grants from the Scleroderma Society of Ontario and from the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. J.E.P. received consulting and/or research grants from AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Ely Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Several Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, oral targeted disease-modifying drugs, will be approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other diseases. This review compares and contrasts the efficacy of JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, peficitinib and decernotinib) in RA including: early RA methotrexate-naive patients, post methotrexate failure and post biologics. Trials in monotherapy, combination with disease modifying drugs such as methotrexate, and comparing with adalimumab in biologic-naive patients were studied. The efficacy is superior to methotrexate in naive patients and equal or superior to adalimumab depending on the drug and dose. There is a class effect of adverse events. Serious infections occur at a rate similar to other advanced therapies in RA, although more reactivation of herpes zoster occurs.

Objective: We evaluated the associations between time-varying methotrexate (MTX) use and risk of cardiovascular events (CVE) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: We studied an inception cohort of 23,994 patients with RA diagnosed after their 65th birthday. Multivariable Cox regression models were fit to evaluate the associations between time-varying MTX use, controlling for other risk factors, and time to CVE. Alternative models assessed the cumulative duration of MTX use over the (1) first year, (2) previous year (recent use), and (3) entire duration of followup. We also assessed whether the strength of the association varied over time., Results: Over 115,453 patient-years (PY), 3294 (13.7%) patients experienced a CVE (28.5 events per 1000 PY; 95% CI 27.6-29.5). In the multivariable analyses, the model assessing time-varying continuous use in the most recent year yielded the best fit. Increasing recent MTX use was associated with lower CVE risks (HR 0.79 for continuous use vs no use in past 12 months, 95% CI 0.70-0.88; p < 0.0001). Greater MTX use in the first year after cohort entry was also protective (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.96; p = 0.0048), but this effect decreased with increasing followup. In contrast, longer MTX use during the entire followup was not clearly associated with CVE risk (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.01; p = 0.1441)., Conclusion: We observed about a 20% decrease in CVE associated with recent continuous MTX use. Greater MTX use in the first year of cohort entry also appeared to be important in the association between MTX and CVE risk.

Objective: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exist along a spectrum, from explanatory, designed to evaluate interventions under ideal conditions, to pragmatic, designed to reflect usual care. This study assessed the pragmatism of RCTs of advanced therapeutics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify RA RCTs comparing biologic or targeted synthetic therapy in combination with methotrexate, to placebo or any other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Trials were rated using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) tool in 9 domains, each rated from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). Latent class and regression analyses examined the heterogeneity in PRECIS-2 scores and the relationship to trial characteristics., Results: In total, 96 trials were included. Eligibility, follow-up, and flexibility of delivery of the intervention were rated as explanatory, with mean ± SD PRECIS-2 scores of 2.0 ± 0.7, 2.0 ± 1.1, and 2.1 ± 0.7, respectively, reflecting strict inclusion criteria, intensive follow-up, and rigid protocols. Studies were rated as pragmatic in setting (3.6 ± 1.5) because many were international, multicenter trials, and in primary analysis (4.1 ± 1.3), because most used intent-to-treat analyses. In latent class analyses, 2 groups were identified; the majority (74%) were rated as explanatory for most domains assessed. These trials had larger sample sizes, were more likely to be industry-funded, and enrolled patients with higher Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores, but were less likely to be at high risk of bias., Conclusion: RCTs of biologic DMARD treatment in combination with methotrexate for RA were rated as predominantly explanatory, which may affect the generalizability of trial results to clinical practice., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To determine whether progressive skin fibrosis is associated with visceral organ progression and mortality during follow-up in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc)., Methods: We evaluated patients from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research database with dcSSc, baseline modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) ≥7, valid mRSS at 12±3 months after baseline and ≥1 annual follow-up visit. Progressive skin fibrosis was defined as an increase in mRSS >5 and ≥25% from baseline to 12±3 months. Outcomes were pulmonary, cardiovascular and renal progression, and all-cause death. Associations between skin progression and outcomes were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression., Results: Of 1021 included patients, 78 (7.6%) had progressive skin fibrosis (skin progressors). Median follow-up was 3.4 years. Survival analyses indicated that skin progressors had a significantly higher probability of FVC decline ≥10% (53.6% vs 34.4%; p<0.001) and all-cause death (15.4% vs 7.3%; p=0.003) than non-progressors. These significant associations were also found in subgroup analyses of patients with either low baseline mRSS (≤22/51) or short disease duration (≤15 months). In multivariable analyses, skin progression within 1 year was independently associated with FVC decline ≥10% (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.65) and all-cause death (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.31 to 5.09)., Conclusions: Progressive skin fibrosis within 1 year is associated with decline in lung function and worse survival in dcSSc during follow-up. These results confirm mRSS as a surrogate marker in dcSSc, which will be helpful for cohort enrichment in future trials and risk stratification in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OD has obtained research support from Bayer, Sanofi, Ergonex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion and Pfizer. He is a scientific consultant for 4D Science, Actelion, Active Biotec, Bayer, BiogenIdec, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemoAb, EpiPharm, Ergonex, espeRare foundation, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Inventiva, Lilly, Medac, MedImmune, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Serodapharm and Sinoxa, and has a patent licensed on mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis. DK has consultancy relationships and/or has received grant/research support from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, NIH, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Chemomab, Corbus, Covis, Cytori, Eicos, EMD Serono, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma. He is a shareholder of Eicos. CPD has consultancy relationships with and/or has received speakers’ bureau fees from Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Bayer AG, GlaxoSmithKline, CSL Behring, Merck-Serono, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Biogen IDEC Inc., Inventiva, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim. JEP has consultancy relationships with and/or has received grant/research support from Actelion, Bayer AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer Inc. and Roche. MM-C has consultancy relationships and/or has received grant/research support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, UCB Pharma, Bayer, ChemomAb, Genentech/Roche, Inventiva and Lilly. YA has consultancy relationships with and/or has received grant/research support from Actelion, Pharmaceuticals US, Bayer AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inventiva, Medac, Pfizer Inc., Roche Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Biogen IDEC Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Servier. JdOP and JC are employees of Bayer. WW, SJ and NG have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To evaluate the evidence for morphine and ziconotide as firstline intrathecal (IT) analgesia agents for patients with chronic pain., Methods: Medline was searched (through July 2017) for "ziconotide" or "morphine" AND "intrathecal" AND "chronic pain," with results limited to studies in human populations., Results: The literature supports the use of morphine (based primarily on noncontrolled, prospective, and retrospective studies) and ziconotide (based on randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies) as first-choice IT therapies. The 2016 Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) guidelines recommended both morphine and ziconotide as firstline IT monotherapy for localized and diffuse chronic pain of cancer-related and non-cancer-related etiologies; however, one consensus point emphasized ziconotide use, unless contraindicated, as firstline IT therapy in patients with chronic non-cancer-related pain. Initial IT therapy choice should take into consideration individual patient characteristics (e.g., pain location, response to previous therapies, comorbid medical conditions, psychiatric history). Trialing is recommended to assess medication efficacy and tolerability. For both morphine and ziconotide, the PACC guidelines recommend conservative initial dosing strategies. Due to its narrow therapeutic window, ziconotide requires careful dose titration. Ziconotide is contraindicated in patients with a history of psychosis. IT morphine administration may be associated with serious side effects (e.g., respiratory depression, catheter tip granuloma), require dose increases, and cause dependence over time., Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, morphine and ziconotide are recommended as firstline IT monotherapy for cancer-related and non-cancer-related pain. The choice of first-in-pump therapy should take into consideration patient characteristics and the advantages and disadvantages of each medication., (© 2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine.)

Objective: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This post hoc analysis evaluated tofacitinib persistence in patients with RA in long-term extension (LTE) studies up to 9.5 years., Methods: Data were pooled from two LTE studies: ORAL Sequel (NCT00413699) and Study A3921041 (NCT00661661). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), as monotherapy or with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Kaplan-Meier estimates for tofacitinib drug survival and reasons for discontinuation were evaluated. Baseline factors were analyzed as predictors of persistence., Results: In 4967 tofacitinib-treated patients entering LTE studies, mean (maximum) treatment duration was 3.5 (9.4) years. Median drug survival (95% confidence interval) was 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) years. Estimated 2- and 5-year drug survival rates were 75.5% and 49.4%, respectively. Median drug survival was similar between the tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID groups, and slightly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy versus combination therapy. Overall, 50.7% of patients discontinued tofacitinib; of these, 47.2% were due to adverse events and 7.1% for lack/loss of efficacy. An increased risk of discontinuation was associated with baseline diabetes, hypertension, negative anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), negative rheumatoid factor (RF), and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR)., Conclusion: Median drug survival of tofacitinib-treated patients participating in LTE studies was approximately 5 years and was similar for tofacitinib dosed at 5 and 10 mg BID. Reduced drug survival was associated with negative anti-CCP/RF status, TNFi-IR, and certain comorbidities. These data support tofacitinib use for long-term management of RA., (© 2019 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate seasonal patterns of early inflammatory arthritis (IA) onset and potential associations with IA symptom onset., Methods: The Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) is an inception cohort study of adults with early (12 months or less) IA. We used patient reports of symptom onset as a proxy of IA onset and examined the seasonal distribution of IA onset over 10 years. Influenza time series was based on laboratory-confirmed influenza A and B from the Canadian FluWatch surveillance from 2010-2016. Bivariate analysis of influenza and IA was performed using cross-correlations with different time lags and Poisson regression. IA and influenza were recorded as monthly total frequencies., Results: Of 2519 IA patients, 88% had confirmed rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Significantly, more IA onsets occurred in winter compared with other seasons (P = 0.03); although IA onset was more frequent in January, the difference between months was not statistically significant. Compared to months with the lowest influenza rates, months with the highest influenza rates had a statistically significant, but trivial, increase of 0.003% in the incidence of IA (incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.00003 (1.00005; 1.000053), P = 0.02)., Conclusion: Although IA symptom onset occurs more frequently in winter, we found that flu outbreaks were not associated with a meaningful increase in IA symptom onset in a large, well-characterized cohort of Canadian adults over 6 years., (© 2019 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options., Methods: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers., Results: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available., Conclusions: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm., (© 2018 World Institute of Pain.)

Objective: Childhood-onset SLE (cSLE) manifests differently than adult-onset SLE (aSLE). This study determined whether ethnic differences contribute to the differences in clinical presentation between the two groups., Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from a multi-centred registry from eight adult and four paediatric Canadian centres gathered at study entry. We compared the frequency of clinical manifestations and autoantibodies between aSLE and cSLE. For those with a significant difference, a multivariable logistic regression was performed, adjusting for ethnicity, SLE onset (cSLE vs aSLE), disease duration and centre. Disease activity and damage between aSLE and cSLE were compared after stratifying by disease duration., Results: Of 552 aSLE subjects, 502 (90.9%) were female and 381 (69.0%) were Caucasian. Mean age at diagnosis was 37.0 ± 13.6 years and disease duration 10.9 ± 9.6 years. Of 276 cSLE subjects, 231 (83.7%) were female and 101 (36.6%) were Caucasian. Mean age at diagnosis was 12.7 ± 3.3 years and disease duration 5.6 ± 8.2 years. In multivariable regression analysis, aSLE was associated with decreased odds of having a neurologic disorder (odds ratio = 0.49) and increased odds of having aCL antibodies (odds ratio = 1.85). Disease activity and damage accrual scores were higher in aSLE than cSLE within the same disease duration strata, although the differences were not clinically significant. Ethnicity was not associated with any differences in clinical manifestations or autoantibody frequency between aSLE and cSLE., Conclusions: Although a crude comparison of aSLE and cSLE yielded several differences in clinical symptoms and autoantibodies, this difference was not attributable to ethnic differences between aSLE and cSLE., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation has emerged as a state-of-the-art evidence-based treatment for chronic neuropathic pain and mixed nociceptive-neuropathic pain. In recent years, several newer devices and treatment algorithms have provided unique and effective ways of treating chronic pain by spinal cord stimulation. In a previous review, the authors commented on the 5-year forecast for high frequency and Burst waveforms, as the only two paresthesia independent SCS strategies. Over the last 5 years, there has been considerable addition to the outcome data related to these modalities. Additionally, new treatment algorithms and modalities for spinal cord stimulation have emerged. In this review, the authors provide an up to date summary of these modalities of treatment, indications, and evidence on all different modalities and programming paradigms that are available today., Areas Covered: A literature review was performed using key bibliographic databases to find outcomes related studies pertaining to spinal cord stimulation, limited to the English language and human data, between 2010 and 2018. The literature search yielded the following based on our inclusion criteria; six articles on burst stimulation, three articled on high density/high dose stimulation, six articles on Dorsal Root Ganglion stimulation, nine articles on high-frequency stimulation, and one article on closed-loop stimulation. We have also included in the discussion some smaller and anecdotal studies., Expert Commentary: The evidence to support outcomes of spinal cord stimulation has evolved considerably since our last review in 2014. New targets, frequencies and pulse trains, and feedback appear to have advanced the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation. Future developments aim to continue to refine patient selection and maintenance of patients in therapy.

Objective: Different viral exposures have been implicated in the etiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evidence relating to the association between putative viral exposures and the development of RA was reviewed., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE-OVID, EMBASE-OVID, PUBMED and Cochrane library databases. Articles were included if they were case-controls, cross-sectional or cohort studies and were published in English. Case-series were included if there was a lack of other study designs., Results: Of 6724 citations, 48 were included in meta-analysis. Studies had poor quality. PBV19 infection was increased in RA compared to controls [N = 12, odds ratio (OR) 1.77 (95% CI: 1.11; 2.80) p = 0.02 for PVB19 IgG]. IgG anti-EBNA antibodies were not increased in RA (N = 17, p = 0.75), but anti-VCA [N = 18, OR 1.5 (95% CI: 1.07; 2.10), p = 0.02] and anti-EA antibodies [N = 11, OR 2.74 (95% CI: 1.27; 5.94), p = 0.01] were increased in RA. CMV was not associated with RA (N = 13, p = 0.42), nor was HBV (N = 5, p = 0.09). HCV was associated with RA in 7 case-control studies [OR 2.82 (95% CI: 1.35; 5.90), p = 0.006] and one cohort study [hazard ratio (HR) 2.03 (95% CI: 1.27, 3.22), p < 0.01]. Persistent arthritis was increased after Chikungunya fever [N = 2, OR 90 (95% CI: 15.2, 134.3), p = 0.047]., Conclusions: Studies of RA after viral exposures have poor quality. There is a risk of RA after Parvo B19, HCV and possibly EBV infection. CMV and HBV infections are not associated with RA. CHIKV is associated with the persistent inflammatory arthritis., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background:: Patients with immune-mediated diseases on immunosuppressive therapies have more infectious episodes than healthy individuals, yet vaccination practices by physicians for this patient population remain suboptimal., Objectives:: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive therapies and provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations., Methods:: A literature search for vaccination safety and efficacy in patients on immunosuppressive therapies (2009-2017) was conducted. Results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system., Results:: Several immunosuppressive therapies attenuate vaccine response. Thus, vaccines should be administered before treatment whenever feasible. Inactivated vaccines can be administered without treatment discontinuation. Similarly, evidence suggests that the live zoster vaccine is safe and effective while on select immunosuppressive therapy, although use of the subunit vaccine is preferred. Caution regarding other live vaccines is warranted. Drug pharmacokinetics, duration of vaccine-induced viremia, and immune response kinetics should be considered to determine appropriate timing of vaccination and treatment (re)initiation. Infants exposed to immunosuppressive therapies through breastmilk can usually be immunized according to local guidelines. Intrauterine exposure to immunosuppressive agents is not a contraindication for inactivated vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines scheduled for infants and children ⩾12 months of age, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, can be safely administered as sufficient time has elapsed for drug clearance., Conclusions:: Immunosuppressive agents may attenuate vaccine responses, but protective benefit is generally maintained. While these recommendations are evidence based, they do not replace clinical judgment, and decisions regarding vaccination must carefully assess the risks, benefits, and circumstances of individual patients.

Background: Peripheral neuropathy is a chronic pain disorder involving physical, chemical, or metabolic damage to peripheral nerves. Its pain can be intense and disabling. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation is an effective treatment for neuropathic pain, including cases with the limited regional distributions that often characterize peripheral neuropathy., Methods: A retrospective analysis was completed. Patients were included on the basis of having chronic intractable peripheral neuropathy of the legs and/or feet and responding successfully to a trial of DRG stimulation with leads at L4-S1. Visual analog scale pain scores and pain medication usage were collected at the baseline visit and after six weeks of treatment. Eight consecutive patients across two study centers were included (7 male, 1 female; mean age: 64.8 ± 10.2 years). Six cases of neuropathy were bilateral and two were unilateral. One patient presented with chronic radiculopathy, two patients had neuropathy associated with diabetes, and five patients had neuropathy not associated with a diabetes history., Results: The pain was rated 7.38 ± 0.74 at baseline and decreased to 1.50 ± 1.31 at the 6-week follow-up, a reduction of 79.5 ± 18.8%. For individual patients, pain relief ranged from 42.86% to 100.00%; two patients experienced complete elimination of pain while seven of the eight patients experienced greater than 50% pain relief. In addition, three patients significantly decreased their pain medication use and four were able to discontinue their medications entirely., Conclusion: This small multicenter retrospective case series provides preliminary evidence that the painful symptoms of general peripheral neuropathy in the lower extremities, as well as associated pain medication usage, can be effectively managed by DRG stimulation at the L4-S1 spinal level. Importantly, this treatment appears efficacious for peripheral neuropathy., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Introduction: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is dedicated to improving the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation and thus improving the lives of patients undergoing neuromodulation therapies. With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), among other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the International Neuromodulation Society (INS), the NACC reconvened to develop the best practices consensus document for the selection, implantation and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes., Methods: The NACC performed a comprehensive literature search of articles about DRG published from 1995 through June, 2017. A total of 2538 article abstracts were then reviewed, and selected articles graded for strength of evidence based on scoring criteria established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Graded evidence was considered along with clinical experience to create the best practices consensus and recommendations., Results: The NACC achieved consensus based on peer-reviewed literature and experience to create consensus points to improve patient selection, guide surgical methods, improve post-operative care, and make recommendations for management of patients treated with DRG stimulation., Conclusion: The NACC recommendations are intended to improve patient care in the use of this evolving therapy for chronic pain. Clinicians who choose to follow these recommendations may improve outcomes., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Objectives: This study evaluated the interaction of anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF) in predicting sustained clinical response in an observational registry of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) followed in routine practice., Methods: Patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative registry, with ≥1 swollen joint, autoantibody information and ≥1 follow-up assessment were included. Sustained clinical remission was defined as Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤2.8 in at least two sequential visits separated by 3-12 months. Time to sustained remission was assessed using cumulative incidence curves and multivariate cox regression., Results: Among 3251 patients in the registry, 970 were included, of whom 262 (27%) were ACPA neg /RF neg , 60 (6.2%) ACPA pos /RF neg , 117 (12.1%) ACPA neg /RF pos and 531 (54.7%) ACPA pos /RF pos at baseline. Significant between group differences were observed in age (p=0.02), CDAI (p=0.03), tender joint count (p=0.02) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (p=0.002), with ACPA pos patients being youngest with lowest disease activity and disability. No difference in biologic use was found between groups (20.2% of patients).Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, sustained remission was achieved by 43.5% of ACPA pos /RF pos patients, 43.3% of ACPA pos /RF neg patients, 31.6 % of ACPA neg /RF pos patients and 32.4% of ACPA neg /RF neg patients (p=0.01). Significant differences were observed in CDAI improvement based on ACPA and RF status where ACPA pos /RF pos had a shorter time to achieving sustained remission (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.67) and experienced significantly higher improvements compared with ACPA neg /RF neg patients., Conclusions: Combined ACPA and RF positivity were associated with improved and faster response to antirheumatic medications in patients with RA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No funding has been provided for this manuscript. JP has done research studies and/or consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB. ER and JSS: none relevant to this project; employees at JSS Medical Research, a Contract Research Organization. EK has received sources of funding for research from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis; has a consulting agreement and is a member of an advisory board for Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion, Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, UCB, Sandoz and received speaker honoraria agreements for Amgen, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme UCB. CT has served in advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; has been a consultant for AbbVie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac and Pfizer; has been a speaker for Medexus/Medac; has participated in investigator-initiator studies supported by Amgen and Pfizer and has participated in randomised controlled trials supported by AbbVie, Celgene, CaREBiodam, Novartis and Pfizer. MM, AC, and CB are employees at OBRI. OBRI was funded by peer reviewed grants from Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), Canadian Arthritis Network (CAN) and unrestricted grants from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.