Search

Objective.To evaluate the effect of tofacitinib (TOF) on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria components in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.This post hoc analysis pooled data from RA phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TOF 5 or 10 mg BID, adalimumab (ADA), or placebo, with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and a phase IIIb/IV RCT assessing TOF 5 mg BID monotherapy, TOF 5 mg BID with methotrexate (MTX), or ADA with MTX. Outcomes included proportions of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 responses and ≥ 20/50/70% improvement rates in ACR components at week 2 and months 1, 3, and 6; and mean percent improvement in ACR components and Clinical or Simplified Disease Activity Index (CDAI or SDAI) low disease activity or remission rates, at month 3, for ACR20/50/70 responders.Results.Across treatment groups, ≥ 20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically higher for most physician- vs patient-reported measures. In phase III RCTs, at earlier timepoints, ≥ 50/70% improvements in patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and physician global assessment were similar. Among ACR20 responders receiving TOF, mean percent improvements for tender and swollen joint counts were > 70% at month 3. CDAI/SDAI remission was achieved at month 3 by 27.8–45.0% of ACR70 responders receiving TOF.Conclusion.Among ACR20 responders treated with TOF, physician-reported components particularly exceeded 20% response improvement. At month 3, disease state generally did not corroborate ACR70 response criteria. Divergences between physician- and patient-reported measures highlight the importance of identifying appropriate patient-reported outcome targets to manage RA symptoms in clinical practice. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00847613/NCT00856544/NCT00853385/NCT02187055)

Background/Aims For patients with RA who are refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), optimal disease control is less likely to be achieved with subsequent therapy. In line with recommendations from EULAR and ACR, switching to a treatment with a different mechanism of action is appropriate for these patients. Objectives To describe the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg once daily in patients with RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to TNFis (TNFi-IR). Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis was conducted in TNFi-IR patients who were treated with UPA 15 mg once daily in three Phase 3 clinical trials: SELECT-BEYOND, -CHOICE, and -COMPARE. For COMPARE, only patients treated with adalimumab and switched to UPA as rescue therapy were included. ≥20/50/70% improvement in ACR criteria, DAS28-CRP, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Simple Disease Activity Index, as well as change from baseline in HAQ-DI and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were reported through 24 weeks. Non-responder imputation was used for all missing categorical outcomes; as observed (COMPARE) or multiple imputation (CHOICE, BEYOND) were used for missing continuous outcomes. Pooled safety results were presented as exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) with a cut-off of June 30, 2021. Results 568 TNFi-IR patients were included: 146 from BEYOND, 263 from CHOICE, and 159 from COMPARE. Mean duration since RA diagnosis was longer for BEYOND and CHOICE versus COMPARE; CV risk factors were common among this refractory population. ACR20/50/70 and disease activity outcomes observed in the TNFi-IR population were generally consistent with the overall BEYOND and CHOICE bDMARD-IR populations, and consistent across the three studies in the TNFi-IR subgroups. Improvements in PROs including HAQ-DI, fatigue, pain, and morning stiffness over 24 weeks were observed (data not shown). Pooled safety results reporting 1574.8 PY of exposure in the TNFi-IR subgroup showed similar results to the overall BEYOND and CHOICE bDMARD-IR study populations, with EAERs of 3.1 events/100 PY for herpes zoster and 0.8 events/100 PY for adjudicated major adverse CV events and venous thromboembolism, and malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. The EAER of any AE leading to death was 1.4 events/100 PY. Conclusion In this post hoc subgroup analysis, TNFi-IR patients treated with UPA 15 mg achieved clinically meaningful efficacy responses over 24 weeks, with safety consistent with the overall bDMARD-IR patient population in the Phase 3 program. Disclosure R. Fleischmann: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galvani, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, and UCB. Grants/research support; Grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biosplice, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Flexion, Gilead, Horizon, Eli Lilly, Galvani, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, Selecta, Teva, UCB, Viela, and. L. Bessette: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB. S. Hall: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Sqibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and UCB. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Sqibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and UCB. J. Sparks: Consultancies; Consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. M. Jain: Consultancies; Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis. Grants/research support; Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis. A. Kakehasi: Consultancies; Amgen, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi. Member of speakers’ bureau; Amgen, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi. Grants/research support; Amgen, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi. Y. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. S. Meerwein: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. R. DeMasi: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. J. Suboticki: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. A. Rubbert-Roth: Consultancies; AbbVie, AbbVie Deutschland, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Global Services, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur.

ObjectiveCOMPLETE-PsA was an observational study of biologic-naïve Canadian adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or a nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD) regimen, after inadequate response/intolerance to a current nbDMARD treatment regimen. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 12-month effectiveness of ADA vs nbDMARDs.MethodsPatients enrolled between March 2012 and November 2017 were included. The following clinical variables and patient-reported outcomes were collected/calculated per routine care: Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis in 28 joints (DAPSA28), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein, physician global assessment (PGA), patient global assessment (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey, enthesitis, dactylitis, body surface area (BSA), and time to achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50, ACR70, and modified minimal disease activity (mMDA).ResultsTwo hundred and seventy-seven ADA-treated and 148 nbDMARD-treated patients were included. At baseline, ADA-treated patients were less likely to be employed, had longer morning stiffness, higher DAPSA28, DAS28, PGA, PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI, and lower prevalence of dactylitis (allP< 0.05). ADA-treated patients showed lower baseline-adjusted DAPSA28 (16.5 vs 26.6), DAS28 (2.8 vs 3.9), PGA (25.3 vs 37.1), and ESR (10.4 vs 15.0 mm/h) after 3 months compared to nbDMARD-treated patients, with observed improvements maintained to month 12. Time to achievement of ACR50, ACR70, and mMDA was significantly shorter (P< 0.001) among ADA-treated patients, with the likelihood of having dactylitis (odds ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.6) and BSA< 3% (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5–5.0) significantly lower and higher, respectively. Switching to another biologic was less likely in ADA-treated vs nbDMARD-treated patients (hazard ratio 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.5).ConclusionIn a real-world Canadian population of patients with PsA, ADA was more effective than nbDMARDs at reducing disease activity and the severity of skin involvement, and demonstrated higher retention. [ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01559038]

Objectives: This study aims to determine whether patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), either starting on or changing biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), demonstrate better self-management safety skills three months after receiving a multidisciplinary educational intervention compared to patients receiving usual care. Patients and methods: Between October 2015 and October 2018 , this open-label, randomized-controlled trial included a total of 107 RA patients (27 males, 80 females; mean age: 60.2±10.4 years; range, 54 to 71 years) who were on treatment or in whom treatment was changed with a biological or targeted synthetic DMARD. The patients were randomized into two groups: Group 1 (n=57) received additional intervention with educational DVD and one teleconference session and Group 2 (n=55) received usual care and were offered the intervention at three months. All patients underwent a final visit at six months. At each visit, the patients completed the BioSecure questionnaire measuring the self-care safety skills, a behavioral intention questionnaire, and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Results: No significant difference was observed in the Biosecure score at three months between the two groups (p=0.08). After pooling the first three-month data in Group 1 and the last three-month data in Group 2, the mean score of the BioSecure questionnaire increased to 7.10±0.92 in the group receiving educational intervention (p Conclusion: The development of an educational DVD followed by a teleconference seem to improve self-care safety skills of the patients in practical situations.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis assessed frequency or duration of early select non-serious adverse events (AEs; excluding infections), and their impact on treatment discontinuation, in patients with RA or PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo.Data were pooled from five phase 3 and one phase 3b/4 studies in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, and two phase 3 studies in patients with active PsA. Select all-causality, non-serious AEs, reported to month 3 (placebo-controlled period), were headache, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and gastric discomfort (including dyspepsia, gastritis, epigastric discomfort, and abdominal discomfort or pain); incidence rates (unique patients with events per 100 patient-years of follow-up), duration of, and discontinuations due to these non-serious AEs were reported.We analyzed 3871 and 710 patients with RA and PsA, respectively. Incidence of non-serious AEs to month 3 was generally similar with tofacitinib and placebo. The most frequent non-serious AEs were headache and diarrhea with tofacitinib, and dyspepsia, nausea, and headache with placebo. Most events were mild or moderate in severity, lasting ≤ 4 weeks. Permanent discontinuations due to non-serious AEs were not observed in patients with PsA, and were 1.0% in patients with RA across treatment groups. The most frequent cause of temporary discontinuation across all groups was gastric discomfort (0.3-0.8%).Non-serious AE incidence was generally similar in patients with RA or PsA receiving tofacitinib or placebo. Most events were mild or moderate and generally resolved within 4 weeks.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00960440; NCT00847613; NCT00814307; NCT00856544; NCT00853385; NCT01877668; NCT01882439; NCT02187055.Tofacitinib is a medicine that can be taken by patients to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Serious side effects that might occur in patients taking tofacitinib are more frequently discussed than the mild, non-serious side effects that patients might consider to be more of a ‘nuisance’, which often occur shortly (3 months) after starting treatment. Here we looked at patients with RA or PsA who were taking tofacitinib or placebo (no medicine) during clinical trials, to find out how often they had certain non-serious side effects, how long they lasted, and whether they caused the patients to stop taking their medication. A similar number of patients with RA or PsA taking tofacitinib or placebo had non-serious side effects. The most common non-serious side effects in patients taking tofacitinib were a headache and diarrhea. The most common non-serious side effects in patients taking placebo (no medicine) were indigestion, a feeling of sickness, and/or headache. Most non-serious side effects were mild or moderate and stopped within about 4 weeks. Fewer than one in every 100 patients with RA, and no patients with PsA, stopped taking their medication because of non-serious side effects. Most patients who stopped taking their medication did so due to a feeling of gastrointestinal (stomach) discomfort.

In Canada and other countries, osteoporosis is monitored as part of chronic disease population surveillance programs. Although fractures are the principal manifestation of osteoporosis, very few algorithms are available to identify individuals at high risk of osteoporotic fractures in current surveillance systems. The objective of this study was to derive and validate predictive models to accurately identify individuals at high risk of osteoporotic fracture using information available in healthcare administrative data. More than 270,000 men and women aged ≥66 years were randomly selected from the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Selected individuals were followed between fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2015-2016. Models were constructed for prediction of hip/femur and major osteoporotic fractures for follow-up periods of 5 and 10 years. A total of 62 potential predictors measurable in healthcare administrative databases were identified. Predictor selection was performed using a manual backward algorithm. The predictive performance of the final models was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. Between 20 and 25 predictors were retained in the final prediction models (eg, age, sex, social deprivation index, most of the major and minor risk factors for osteoporosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cognitive impairment, anemia, anxio-depressive disorders). Discrimination of the final models was higher for the prediction of hip/femur fracture than major osteoporotic fracture and higher for prediction for a 5-year than a 10-year period (hip/femur fracture for 5 years: c-index = 0.77; major osteoporotic fracture for 5 years: c-index = 0.71; hip/femur fracture for 10 years: c-index = 0.73; major osteoporotic fracture for 10 years: c-index = 0.68). The predicted probabilities globally agreed with the observed probabilities. In conclusion, the derived models had adequate predictive performance in internal validation. As a final step, these models should be validated in an external cohort and used to develop indicators for surveillance of osteoporosis. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

We thank Dr. Tchetina for their interest in our article

The Rheumatoid Arthritis Flare Questionnaire (RA-FQ) is a patient-reported measure of disease activity in RA. We estimated minimal and meaningful change from the perspective of RA patients, physicians, and using a disease activity index.Data were from 3- to 6-month visits of adults with early RA enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort. Participants completed the RA-FQ, the Patient Global Assessment of RA, and the Patient Global Change Impression at consecutive visits. Rheumatologists recorded joint counts and MD Global. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores were computed. We compared mean RA-FQ change across categories using patients, physicians, and CDAI anchors.The 808 adults were mostly white (84%) women (71%) with a mean age of 55 and moderate-high disease activity (85%) at enrollment. At V2, 79% of patients classified their RA as changed; 59% were better and 20% were worse. Patients reporting they were a lot worse had a mean RA-FQ increase of 8.9 points, whereas those who were a lot better had a -6.0 decrease. Minimal worsening and improvement were associated with a mean 4.7 and - 1.8 change in RA-FQ, respectively, while patients rating their RA unchanged had stable scores. Physician and CDAI classified more patients as worse than patients, and minimal and meaningful RA-FQ thresholds differed by group.Thresholds to identify meaningful change vary by anchor used. These data offer new evidence demonstrating robust psychometric properties of the RA-FQ and offer guidance about improvement or worsening, supporting its use in RA care, research, and decision-making.

ObjectivesThis integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsTreatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks).Results3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups.ConclusionIn the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab.Trial registration numbersSELECT-EARLY:NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT:NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE:NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY:NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND:NCT02706847.

OBJECTIVE Higher self-reported disability (high Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score) has been associated with hospitalizations and mortality in established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but associations in early RA are unknown. METHODS Patients with early RA (symptom duration

Background/Aims A greater proportion of patients with RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) receiving upadacitinib (UPA), achieved REM/LDA compared with adalimumab (ADA), both with background MTX, through 26 weeks in the phase 3, SELECT-COMPARE trial. Here we assessed sustainability of response over 3 years. Methods SELECT-COMPARE included a 26-week, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled period, a 48-week, double-blind active comparator-controlled period, and an ongoing long-term extension for up to 10 years. Patients on background MTX received UPA 15 mg once daily, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every other week. Patients not achieving at least 20% improvements in tender/swollen joint counts (Weeks 14-22) or LDA (CDAI ≤10 at Week 26) were rescued from UPA to ADA or PBO/ADA to UPA. This post hoc analysis evaluated clinical REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI ≤10; SDAI ≤11), and DAS28(CRP) Results Through 3 years, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX achieved CDAI REM (47% vs 35%, P = 0.001) as well as CDAI LDA (70% vs 60%, P = 0.001). At 30 months after first occurrence of response, CDAI REM/LDA was sustained in 19%/42% of patients randomized to UPA and 10%/30% of patients randomized to ADA. Time to initial clinical response did not appear to be predictive of sustained disease control. C-index for CDAI REM/LDA was 0.50/0.60 on UPA vs 0.49/0.56 on ADA. Through last follow-up visit, 37%/58% of patients receiving UPA and 27%/48% on ADA remained in CDAI REM/LDA, respectively. Of patients who lost CDAI REM, 68% on UPA and 55% on ADA remained in LDA. Roughly similar proportions on UPA and ADA recaptured CDAI REM/LDA (UPA, 40%/17%; ADA, 48%/19%). Similar results were observed for REM/LDA based on SDAI and for DAS28(CRP) Conclusion Among patients with inadequate response to MTX, a higher proportion receiving UPA + MTX achieved remission or LDA across disease activity measures vs ADA + MTX. UPA-treated patients demonstrated a consistently higher sustained response rate over 3 years compared to those receiving ADA. Furthermore, significant proportions of patients who lost response on either UPA or ADA were able to recapture remission or LDA. Disclosure M.H. Buch: Consultancies; M.H.B. has received consulting fees/meeting support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingleheim, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi. Grants/research support; M.H.B. has received research grants from Pfizer, Gilead, and UCB. P. Nash: Honoraria; P.N. has received honoraria for lectures and advice from AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Gilead/Galapagos, Sanofi, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Samsung, MSD, Roche. Grants/research support; P.N. has received research funding for clinical trials. A. Kavanaugh: Consultancies; A.K. has provided expert advice to AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Grants/research support; A.K. has has received grants/research support. B. Combe: Consultancies; B.C. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Chugai. L. Bessette: Consultancies; L.B. has received consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. Member of speakers’ bureau; L.B. has served as a speaker for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. Grants/research support; L.B. has received grants/research support from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. I. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; IH.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. T. Shaw: Shareholder/stock ownership; T.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. Y. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; Y.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. J.L. Suboticki: Shareholder/stock ownership; J.L.S is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. R. Fleischmann: Consultancies; R.F. is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Grants/research support; R.F. has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Regeneron, Roche,Sanofi-Aventis.

ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy.MethodsSELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts (‘non-responders’) and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 (‘incomplete-responders’) without washout.ResultsA total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups.ConclusionsThese observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout.

Background The objectives of this study were to describe the profile of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients treated with either infliximab (IFX) or subcutaneous golimumab (GLM) treatment in Canadian routine care setting along with assessing long-term effectiveness and safety. Methods AS patients who were eligible for treatment with IFX or subcutaneous GLM as per their respective Canadian product monographs were enrolled into the BioTRAC registry from 2005 to 2017. The study visits occurred at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Effectiveness was assessed by changes in clinical outcomes and acute phase reactants. Safety was evaluated by assessing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and drug survival rates. Results A total of 389 IFX- and 421 GLM-treated patients were enrolled. A significant decrease in disease duration at baseline was observed in the IFX cohort, from a median of 8.0 in 2005–2008 to 1.0 years in 2009–2015 (p p = 0.011) and proportion of patients in ASDAS very high disease activity (p = 0.004) was also observed over time. Meanwhile, in the GLM cohort, most disease parameters remained similar from 2010 to 2017. Treatment with both agents significantly improved all disease parameters over time with similar efficacy between the two agents. The incidence of AEs and SAEs were 136 and 131 events/100 PYs and 10.5 and 8.45 events/100 PYs for IFX- and GLM-treated patients, respectively. Conclusion Both IFX and GLM treatment in AS significantly reduced disease activity in most outcome measures in a similar fashion and were well tolerated in Canadian routine care. Trial registration NCT00741793.

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate whether diacerein has comparable efficacy with celecoxib in pain reduction for treatment in symptomatic knee OA patients. Methods This randomized double-blind multicentre non-inferiority trial evaluated diacerein vs celecoxib treatment in patients with Kellgren–Lawrence grade 2–3 and pain scoring ≥4 (10-cm VAS). Patients were randomized to 6 months of treatment with diacerein 50 mg (n = 187) once daily for 1 month and twice daily thereafter, or celecoxib 200 mg (n = 193) once daily. The primary outcome was the change in WOMAC pain score (0–50 cm) at 6 months, and the secondary outcomes were WOMAC sub-scores, VAS pain score, and the OMERACT–OARSI responder rate. Results In the per protocol population, the adjusted mean change from baseline in the WOMAC pain score was –11.1 ( 0.9) with diacerein (n = 140) and –11.8 (0.9) with celecoxib (n = 148). The intergroup difference was 0.7 (95% CI: −1.8, 3.2; P = 0.597), meeting the non-inferiority margin. Supportive analysis of the intention-to-treat population gave similar results. Other outcomes showed no significant difference between treatment groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low and balanced between groups, but a greater incidence of diarrhoea occurred with diacerein (10.2% vs 3.7%). Diarrhoea was considered mild-to-moderate in all but one case with complete resolution. Conclusions Diacerein was non-inferior to celecoxib in reducing knee OA pain and improving physical function. Diacerein also demonstrated a good safety profile. Trial registration A multicentre study on the effect of DIacerein on Structure and Symptoms vs Celecoxib in Osteoarthritis is a National Institutes of Health (NCT02688400) and European Clinical Trial Database (2015–002933-23) registered phase III (Canada) or IV (Europe) study.

In Canadian medicine faculties, an average of 2.3% of the medical curriculum is dedicated to musculoskeletal problems with a focus on orthopedic conditions. The goal of this descriptive study was to assess the educational preferences in rheumatology of family medicine residents and to identify their preferred methods of learning.From September 2017 to December 2017, two hundred and thirty-six first- and second-year family medicine residents from Université Laval were asked to complete an electronic anonymous survey assessing their confidence in doing different rheumatology tasks. They were also consulted on their favorite methods of learning and their preferred periods throughout their medical cursus to learn the different skills related to rheumatology.Eighty-five family medicine residents completed the survey. The residents were rather confident when evaluating mono-arthritis but less confident for oligo/polyarthritis and even less confident with connective tissue diseases. The family medicine residents mentioned preferring traditional lecture classes and clinical cases. They wanted to learn the majority of rheumatology education during medical school training. As residents, they wanted only small capsules, seminars, or memory aids. Interestingly, men preferred learning rheumatology skills during the residency, whereas women preferred learning it in medical school.The lack of confidence of family medicine residents when evaluating systemic inflammatory diseases compared to mechanical musculoskeletal problems highlights the importance of rheumatology teaching through general medical training and through family medicine residency. Key Points • Family medicine residents are less confident when evaluating systemic inflammatory diseases than musculoskeletal disorders. • Family medicine residents prefer traditional lecture classes and clinical cases. • Family medicine residents prefer learning rheumatology during medical school training.

ObjectiveEvaluate the effect of upadacitinib on pain outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) across 3 randomised trials (SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 for PsA; SELECT-AXIS 1 for AS).MethodsPatients were randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo (all 3 studies), or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain outcomes included proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction from baseline in patient global assessment of pain and other end points.ResultsA higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction in pain end points as early as week 2; these improvements with upadacitinib were generally sustained or increased through year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 64%/48%, 58%/42% and 38%/22%, respectively; SELECT-AXIS 1 study: 76%, 72% and 54%). Results were similar with adalimumab in PsA 1 (59%, 49% and 32%). Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg were able to reach a similar level of improvement as the continuous upadacitinib groups by year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 46%–60%, 35%–49% and 15%–34%; AS study: 83%, 72% and 46%). Results were similar with other pain end points.ConclusionRapid and sustained improvements in pain outcomes across several end points were consistently shown with upadacitinib over 1 year in patients with active PsA or AS who had either inadequate response to prior non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (PsA studies) or were biologic-naïve with inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (AS study).

Background Precision medicine, as a personalized medicine approach based on biomarkers, is a booming field. In general, physicians and patients have a positive attitude toward precision medicine, but their knowledge and experience are limited. In this study, we aimed at assessing the expectations and educational needs for precision medicine among rheumatologists, rheumatology fellows and patients with rheumatic diseases in Canada. Methods We conducted two anonymous online surveys between June and August 2018, one with rheumatologists and fellows and one with patients assessing precision medicine expectations and educational needs. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results 45 rheumatologists, 6 fellows and 277 patients answered the survey. 78% of rheumatologists and fellows and 97.1% of patients would like to receive training on precision medicine. Most rheumatologists and fellows agreed that precision medicine tests are relevant to medical practice (73.5%) with benefits such as helping to determine prognosis (58.9%), diagnosis (79.4%) and avoid treatment toxicity (61.8%). They are less convinced of their usefulness in helping to choose the most effective treatment and to improve patient adherence (23.5%). Most patients were eager to take precision medicine tests that could predict disease prognosis (92.4%), treatment response (98.1%) or drug toxicity (93.4%), but they feared potential negative impacts like loss of insurability (62.2%) and high cost of the test (57.5%). Conclusions Our study showed that rheumatologists and patients in Canada are overall interested in getting additional precision medicine education. Indeed, while convinced of the potential benefits of precision medicine tests, most physicians don’t feel confident in their abilities and consider their training insufficient to incorporate them into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy, including capacity for inhibition of radiographic progression, and safety of upadacitinib, a JAK1-selective inhibitor, as compared to placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS In total, 1,629 RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (2:2:1) to receive upadacitinib (15 mg once daily), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg every other week) while continuing to take a stable background dose of MTX. The primary end points were achievement of an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response and a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) of

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.

BackgroundIn SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised double-blind study, upadacitinib 15 mg once daily was superior to placebo or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) for treating rheumatoid arthritis signs and symptoms and inhibited radiographical progression versus placebo at 26 weeks. Here we report 48-week safety and efficacy in patients who continued their original medication or were rescued to the alternative medication for insufficient response.MethodsPatients on MTX received upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab for 48 weeks. Rescue without washout, from placebo or adalimumab to upadacitinib or upadacitinib to adalimumab occurred if patients had 10 (week 26); remaining placebo patients were switched to upadacitinib at week 26. Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation), as well as separately for rescued patients (as observed). Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised.ResultsConsistent with responses through week 26, from weeks 26 to 48, responses by randomised group including low disease activity, clinical remission and improvements in pain and function remained superior for upadacitinib versus adalimumab; radiographical progression remained lower for upadacitinib versus placebo (linear extrapolation). Although both switch groups responded, a higher proportion of patients rescued to upadacitinib from adalimumab achieved CDAI ≤10 at 6 months postswitch versus patients rescued from upadacitinib to adalimumab. Safety at week 48 was comparable to week 26.ConclusionUpadacitinib+MTX demonstrated superior clinical and functional responses versus adalimumab+MTX and maintained inhibition of structural damage versus placebo+MTX through week 48. Patients with an insufficient response to adalimumab or upadacitinib safely achieved clinically meaningful responses after switching to the alternative medication without washout.

There is no consensus on which tool is the most accurate to assess fracture risk. The results of this systematic review suggest that QFracture, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with BMD, and Garvan with BMD are the tools with the best discriminative ability. More studies assessing the comparative performance of current tools are needed. Many tools exist to assess fracture risk. This review aims to determine which tools have the best predictive accuracy to identify individuals at high risk of non-traumatic fracture. Studies assessing the accuracy of tools for prediction of fracture were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Global Health. Studies were eligible if discrimination was assessed in a population independent of the derivation cohort. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed on areas under the ROC curve (AUCs). Gender, mean age, age range, and study quality were used as adjustment variables. We identified 53 validation studies assessing the discriminative ability of 14 tools. Given the small number of studies on some tools, only FRAX, Garvan, and QFracture were compared using meta-regression models. In the unadjusted analyses, QFracture had the best discriminative ability to predict hip fracture (AUC = 0.88). In the adjusted analysis, FRAX with BMD (AUC = 0.81) and Garvan with BMD (AUC = 0.79) had the highest AUCs. For prediction of major osteoporotic fracture, QFracture had the best discriminative ability (AUC = 0.77). For prediction of osteoporotic or any fracture, FRAX with BMD and Garvan with BMD had higher discriminative ability than their versions without BMD (FRAX: AUC = 0.72 vs 0.69, Garvan: AUC = 0.72 vs 0.65). A significant amount of heterogeneity was present in the analyses. QFracture, FRAX with BMD, and Garvan with BMD have the highest discriminative performance for predicting fracture. Additional studies in which the performance of current tools is assessed in the same individuals may be performed to confirm this conclusion.

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.