Search

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated how psychosocial aspects of disease affect the probability of achieving sustained remission in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and explored the directionality of this relationship. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the randomized controlled Care in Early RA trial. Sustained remission was defined as a continued Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) of

Flare Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis (FLARE-RA) is a self-administered tool aiming to capture current or recent flares in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to externally validate the FLARE-RA instrument and its existing cutoffs for flare detection within a bDMARD-tapering context in established RA. Data were analyzed from the Tapering Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis (TapERA) trial, which studied the feasibility of tapering etanercept in patients with established RA in sustained remission. The English FLARE-RA was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Dutch, and internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated with Crohnbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Participants completed the FLARE-RA 3-monthly for 12 months. Accuracy and optimal cutoffs of FLARE-RA to detect DAS28-defined flares were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Association of FLARE-RA scores with current and future flares was studied using logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE). The Dutch FLARE-RA showed excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.96; ICC 0.96 [95% CI 0.70-1.00]). Discriminatory capacity of FLARE-RA to detect flares was acceptable (AUC 0.77, 0.80, and 0.72 for global, arthritis, and general symptoms subscales, respectively), with an optimal global score cutoff of 4/10. In GEE-models, higher FLARE-RA scores were associated with increased odds of both current and future flares. We successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted the FLARE-RA into a Dutch version and validated its capacity to detect flares in a bDMARD-tapering context in established RA. Finally, higher FLARE-RA scores might indicate an increased risk of future flares.Trial registration: EU Clinical Trials Register, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-004631-22/BE , EudraCT number 2012-004,631-22. Key Points • Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the FLARE-RA resulted in a Dutch version with excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. • The FLARE-RA is a valid instrument to detect current OMERACT-defined flares within a bDMARD tapering setting, with an optimal global score cutoff of 4/10. • Higher scores on the FLARE-RA are associated with increased risk of future flares, which could be particularly relevant when considering DMARD tapering.

Background/Aims Filgotinib (FIL) is a Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor approved for treatment of moderate-severe active RA. A numerically higher proportion of patients (pts) ≥65y vs Methods This post hoc analysis assessed safety and efficacy in pts aged Results Patients ≥65y had higher proportions of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors at baseline vs those Conclusion In this post hoc integrated safety analysis, the EAIRs of AESIs were generally higher in pts aged ≥65y than Disclosure M.H. Buch: Other; AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Roche, UCB. B. Combe: Other; AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Novartis. J.A. Gómez-Puerta: Other; GSK, Galapagos, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Roche. R. Caporali: Other; AbbVie, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Sanofi. J. Gottenberg: Other; AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer. P. Van Hoek: Other; Galapagos. V. Rajendran: Other; Galapagos. P. Stiers: Other; Galapagos. K. Van Beneden: Other; Galapagos. D. Aletaha: Other; Novartis, SoBi, Sanofi, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Janssen, AbbVie. G. Burmester: Other; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Inc. R. Westhovens: Other; Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead. Y. Tanaka: Other; Lilly, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Mitsubishi Tanabe, GlaxoSmithKline, Asahi Kasei, Takeda, Astellas, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, YL Biologics, MSD, Ono, Taisho Toyama, Celltrion, Gilead, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corrona, Kowa, Amgen, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly.

Background/Aims The safety profile of filgotinib (FIL), a second-generation oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1 preferential inhibitor approved in Europe, Japan, and the UK for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been reported. In patients (pts) with active RA aged ≥50y with ≥1 cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, treated with the pan-JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, data from an interventional post-marketing study (NCT02092467) suggested a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and malignancies compared with TNF inhibitors. No data are available from a similar prospective study with FIL. This post hoc exploratory analysis aimed to describe the incidence of MACE and malignancies in a subgroup of pts with RA from the FINCH and DARWIN clinical trials, receiving FIL 200 mg (FIL200) and FIL 100 mg (FIL100). Methods Exploratory analysis of adverse events of special interest are reported using integrated FIL RA data from phase 2 (NCT01668641, NCT01894516), phase 3 (NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728), and the long-term extension (LTE) studies DARWIN 3 (NCT02065700) and FINCH 4 (NCT03025308), in a pt population at higher risk of CV events similar to ORAL-SURVEILLANCE,1 namely, aged ≥50y with ≥1 CV risk factor (history of dyslipidemia, diabetes or CV disease; hypertension, ischemic vascular conditions, peripheral vascular disease, extra-articular manifestations of RA; or current smokers). All pts met ACR criteria for functional class I-III. Censored exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs)/100 pt-years of exposure for MACE, venous thromboembolism (VTE), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC, (serious) infections, and deaths were determined. Data were as of Jan 11, 2022 (DARWIN 3) and Jan 31, 2022 (FINCH 4). Analyses were performed on an ad hoc interim analysis data set without additional cleaning. Results The higher-risk population included 1484 pts: mean age 62.1y (536 [36.1%] aged ≥65y), 291 (22.5%) current smokers, and 904 (60.9%) received background MTX; baseline (BL) MTX use was higher in the FIL100 vs FIL200 group (66.6% vs 54.6%); other BL demographics were balanced. Numerically higher EAIRs for malignancies (excluding NMSC), NMSC, serious infections, and deaths were observed for pts receiving FIL200 vs FIL100; 95% confidence intervals overlapped. For MACE and VTE, incidence is considered similar for both doses. The risk of experiencing MACE, malignancies excluding NMSC, and NMSC over time with FIL100 or FIL200 will be described. Conclusion In this RA population at higher risk of CV events, the incidence of MACE and VTE was similar for both doses. A numerically higher incidence of malignancies (excluding NMSC), NMSC, serious infections, and deaths was observed in the high- vs low-dose group. Limitations included population selection bias, low event numbers, and the post hoc nature of the analysis. The ongoing LTE and real-world studies in RA will continue to investigate the safety of FIL in these populations. Disclosure M.H. Buch: Honoraria; MHB has recieved funding (Paid to her host institution) fromAbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Roche, UCB. G.R. Burmester: Honoraria; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Inc. X. Mariette: Honoraria; AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer. C. Charles-Schoeman: Honoraria; AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, Regeneron-Sanofi, Gilead. V. Rajendran: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. P. Stiers: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. A. Cerani: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. P. Van Hoek: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. K. Van Beneden: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. Y. Tanaka: Honoraria; Lilly, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Mitsubishi Tanabe, GlaxoSmithKline, Asahi Kasei, Takeda, Astellas, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, YL Biologics, MSD, Ono, T. H. Schulze-Koops: Honoraria; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer. R. Westhovens: Honoraria; Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead. E. Favalli: Honoraria; AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB.

ObjectivesAlthough eHealth tools are potentially useful for remote disease monitoring, barriers include concerns of low engagement and high attrition. We aimed to summarise evidence on patients’ engagement and attrition with eHealth tools for remotely monitoring disease activity/impact in chronic arthritis.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted for original articles and abstracts published before September 2022. Eligible studies reported quantitative measures of patients’ engagement with eHealth instruments used for remote monitoring in chronic arthritis. Engagement rates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsOf 8246 references, 45 studies were included: 23 using smartphone applications, 13 evaluating wearable activity trackers, 7 using personal digital assistants, 6 including web-based platforms and 2 using short message service. Wearable-based studies mostly reported engagement as the proportion of days the tracker was worn (70% pooled across 6 studies). For other eHealth tools, engagement was mostly reported as completion rates for remote patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The pooled completion rate was 80%, although between-study heterogeneity was high (I293%) with significant differences between eHealth tools and frequency of PRO-collection. Engagement significantly decreased with longer study duration, but attrition varied across studies (0%–89%). Several predictors of higher engagement were reported. Data on the influence of PRO-reporting frequency were conflicting.ConclusionGenerally high patient engagement was reported with eHealth tools for remote monitoring in chronic arthritis. However, we found considerable between-study heterogeneity and a relative lack of real-world data. Future studies should use standardised measures of engagement, preferably assessed in a daily practice setting.Trial registeration numberThe protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021267936).

Objectives To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of filgotinib (FIL) for Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and limited/no prior methotrexate (MTX) exposure. We present a Japanese population subanalysis of a global randomised-controlled trial at Week 52 and interim long-term extension (LTE) to Week 48 through June 2020. Methods Patients were randomised to FIL 200 mg plus MTX, FIL 100 mg plus MTX, FIL 200 mg, or MTX for 52 weeks. At completion, eligible patients could enrol in the LTE. Those receiving FIL continued; those receiving MTX were rerandomised (blinded) to FIL 200 or 100 mg upon discontinuation of MTX. After a 4-week washout period, MTX could be re-added. Results Adverse event rates at Week 52 and in the LTE to Week 48 were comparable across treatment groups. Week 52 American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) rates were 83% (19/23), 82% (9/11), 75% (9/12), and 76% (19/25) for FIL 200 mg plus MTX, FIL 100 mg plus MTX, FIL 200 mg, and MTX, respectively. Through LTE Week 48, ACR20 rates were maintained. Conclusions In the 56 Japanese patients treated with FIL, efficacy was maintained through Week 52 and beyond, with no increases in the incidence of adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) considerably impacts patients' mental health. However, it is largely unclear how people suffering from RA experience psychological stress beyond depression or anxiety, and what drives stress in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of RA on psychological stress, as follows: 1) How is stress defined and described in studies on RA? 2) Do patients with RA experience more stress than the general population or people suffering from other chronic conditions? 3) What are risk factors for developing stress in this context? METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane Library for English language peer-reviewed reports published up to 19 April 2020. Eligible studies included any measure or definition of psychological stress as an outcome in patients with RA. Data were extracted on patient and study characteristics, instruments used to measure stress and predictors of stress, and were summarized descriptively. Study quality was assessed with the MINORS or AXIS-tool for longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, respectively. RESULTS: Among 11.115 potentially relevant studies, 16 studies were included. Remarkably, 13 different instruments to measure stress were reported in these studies. Different types of stress experienced by patients with RA included role stress, social stress, and work stress. Work stress and social stress, particularly resulting from interpersonal stressors, were reported as more prevalent in patients with RA compared to healthy controls. Stress at disease onset appeared more pronounced in patients with RA compared to people suffering from osteoarthritis, while psychological stress was reported as higher in patients with chronic pain syndromes compared to patients with RA. More disability, more pain, less social support, lower income, younger age and personality traits like excessive worrying, pessimism, and sensitivity to anxiety, seemed to increase the risk for higher stress levels. CONCLUSIONS: Thisscoping review is, to our knowledge, the first to address the important heterogeneity of the measurement tools and definitions of psychological stress in RA research. This review could provide a basis to standardize the concept of stress in people suffering from RA, with a view to proposing tailored stress-reducing interventions.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies among recently diagnosed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using methotrexate (MTX) and a step-down glucocorticoid (GC) scheme (COBRA Slim) compared with (1) this combination with either sulphasalazine (COBRA Classic) or leflunomide (COBRA Avant-Garde) in high-risk patients and (2) MTX without GCs (Tight-Step-Up, TSU) in low-risk patients.MethodsThe incremental cost-utility was calculated from a healthcare perspective in the intention-to-treat population (n=379) of the 2-year open-label pragmatic randomised controlled Care in early RA trial. Healthcare costs were collected prospectively through electronic trial records. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using mapping algorithms for EuroQoL-5 Dimension. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data and bootstrapping to calculate CIs. Robustness was tested with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at biosimilar prices.ResultsIn the high-risk group, Classic (∆k€1.464, 95% CI −0.198 to 3.127) and Avant-Garde (∆k€0.636, 95% CI −0.987 to 2.258) were more expensive compared with Slim and QALYs were slightly worse for Classic (∆−0.002, 95% CI −0.086 to 0.082) and Avant-Garde (∆−0.009, 95% CI −0.102 to 0.084). This resulted in the domination of Classic and Avant-Garde by Slim. In the low-risk group, Slim was cheaper (∆k€−0.617, 95% CI −2.799 to 1.566) and QALYs were higher (∆0.141, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.274) compared with TSU, indicating Slim dominated. Results were robust against the price of biosimilars.ConclusionsThe combination of MTX with a GC bridging scheme is less expensive with comparable health utility than more intensive step-down combination strategies or a conventional step-up approach 2 years after initial treatment.Trial registration numberNCT01172639.

ObjectiveTo investigate the success rate of glucocorticoid (GC) discontinuation during follow-up in observational cohorts and clinical trials using temporary GC as part of initial therapy (‘bridging’) in newly diagnosed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsSystematic literature searches were conducted to identify observational cohorts and clinical trials including patients with RA treated with initial GC bridging therapy, defined as discontinuation of GC within 1 year. Patient percentages still using GC were considered the reverse of successful discontinuation. Random effects meta-analyses were performed stratified by time point.ResultsThe scoping literature search for observational cohort studies could not identify studies answering the research question. The literature search for clinical trials identified 7160 abstracts, resulting in 10 included studies, with varying type and dose of GC and varying tapering schedules, of which 4 reported sufficient data on GC discontinuation or use after the bridging phase. The pooled proportion of patients who were still or again using GC was 22% (95% CI 8% to 37%, based on four trials) at 12 months and 10% at 24 months (95% CI −1 to 22, based on two trials). Heterogeneity was substantial (I²≥65%).ConclusionThe success rate of GC discontinuation after bridging as part of initial treatment of RA has been described in a limited number of studies. Reports on observational cohorts did not answer the research question. In clinical trials, protocolised discontinuation was mostly successful, although 22% of the patients who started GC bridging therapy still or again used GC at 12 months, and 10% at 24 months.

ObjectivesThe phase 2 MANTA and MANTA-RAy studies aimed to determine if the oral Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor filgotinib affects semen parameters and sex hormones in men with inflammatory diseases.MethodsMANTA (NCT03201445) and MANTA-RAy (NCT03926195) included men (21–65 years) with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis), respectively. Eligible participants had semen parameters in the normal range per the WHO definition. In each study, participants were randomised 1:1 to receive once-daily, double-blind filgotinib 200 mg or placebo for 13 weeks for pooled analysis of the primary endpoint (proportion of participants with a ≥50% decrease from baseline in sperm concentration at week 13). Participants who met the primary endpoint were monitored over an additional 52 weeks for ‘reversibility’. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline to week 13 in: sperm concentration, total motility, normal morphology, total count and ejaculate volume. Sex hormones (luteinising hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, inhibin B and total testosterone) and reversibility were exploratory endpoints.ResultsAcross both studies, 631 patients were screened, and 248 were randomised to filgotinib 200 mg or placebo. Baseline demographics and characteristics were similar within indications between treatment groups. Numerically similar proportions of filgotinib-treated versus placebo-treated patients met the primary endpoint (8/120 (6.7%) vs 10/120 (8.3%)), Δ−1.7% (95% CI −9.3% to 5.8%)). There were no clinically relevant changes from baseline to week 13 in semen parameters or sex hormones, or patterns of reversibility between treatment groups. Filgotinib was well tolerated, with no new safety events.ConclusionsResults suggest that once daily filgotinib 200 mg for 13 weeks has no measurable impact on semen parameters or sex hormones in men with active IBD or inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Objective To unravel disease impact in early RA by separately quantifying patient-reported (PRF), clinical (CF) and laboratory (LF) factors. We propose a new indicator, the discordance score (DS), for early identification and prediction of patient’s unmet needs and of future achievement of sustained remission (SR) and RA-related quality of life (QoL). Methods Factor-scores obtained by factor analysis in the CareRA trial, allowed to compute DS, reflecting the difference between PRF and the mean of CF and LF. Improvement from baseline to week 104 (%) and area-under-the-curve (AUC) across time points per factor-score were calculated and compared between patients achieving/not achieving sustained (week 16–104) remission (DAS28CRP Results PRF, CF and LF scores improved rapidly within 8 weeks. PRF improved 57%, CF 90% and LF 27%, in those achieving SR, compared with 32% (PRF: P = 0.13), 77% (CF: P Conclusions All factor scores improved rapidly, especially in patients achieving sustained remission. Patient-reported burden improved less. Discordance scores could help predicting the need for additional non-pharmacological interventions to achieve sustained remission and decrease disease impact.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted significant changes in patient care in rheumatology and gastroenterology, with clinical guidance issued to manage ongoing therapy while minimising the risk of nosocomial infection for patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Subcutaneous (SC) formulations of biologics enable patients to self-administer treatments at home; however, switching between agents may be undesirable. CT-P13 SC is the first SC formulation of infliximab that received regulatory approval and may be termed a biobetter as it offers significant clinical advantages over intravenous (IV) infliximab, including improved pharmacokinetics and a convenient mode of delivery. Potential benefits in terms of reduced immunogenicity have also been suggested. With a new SC formulation, infliximab provides an additional option for dual formulation, which enables patients to transition from IV to SC administration route without changing agent. Before COVID-19, clinical trials supported the efficacy and safety of switching from IV to SC infliximab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and SC infliximab may have been selected on the basis of patient and HCP preferences for SC agents. During the pandemic, patients with rheumatic diseases and IBD have successfully switched from IV to SC infliximab, with some clinical benefits and high levels of patient satisfaction. As patients switched to SC therapeutics, the reduction in resource requirements for IV infusion services may have been particularly welcome given the pandemic, facilitating reorganisation and redeployment in overstretched healthcare systems, alongside pharmacoeconomic benefits and a reduction in exposure to nosocomial infection. Telemedicine and contactless healthcare have been pushed to the forefront during the pandemic, and a lasting shift towards remote patient management and community/home-based drug administration is anticipated. SC infliximab supports the implementation of this paradigm for future improvements of healthcare value delivered. The accumulation of real-world data during the pandemic supports the high level of confidence, with patients, physicians, and healthcare systems benefitting from its uptake. ispartof: ADVANCES IN THERAPY vol:39 issue:6 pages:2342-2364 ispartof: location:United States status: published

ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

BackgroundSystemic sclerosis (SSc) is a severe autoimmune disease often leading to fibrotic cutaneous involvement of the face. Reduced oral aperture is associated with impaired food intake, oral hygiene and secondary dental problems. Stretching and oral augmentation exercises can increase oral aperture but are often hampered by low adherence rates. The aim of this mixed method study was to explore feasibility, patient satisfaction and effectiveness of two exercise programs in SSc-associated microstomia.MethodsAdult patients (ResultsWe included 6 women and 3 men, median age 60 years (range 40-75) and median disease duration 8 years (range 3-22). At 6 months, all patients in group A (n=4) and 4 in group B (n=5) improved with a median of 9mm (range 2-10) and 7mm (range 4-11), respectively. The proportion of executed to the planned number of exercises ranged between 63.7% and 98,9% in group A and between 48.5% and 97,4% in group B. Maintenance of the increase in oral aperture was noted in patients that continued to exercise daily. All 9 patients attended the interview that revealed three themes: drivers, challenges and perceived improvement. ConclusionBoth interventions improve maximal oral aperture. The adherence to therapy was high but none of the patients considered it feasible to continue practicing 3 times/day. Future studies are needed in order to define feasible long-term exercise programs.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of step-down strategies for patients with well-controlled early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on a combination of methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) is currently lacking. METHOD: The Care in early RA (CareRA) trial is a 2-year randomized pragmatic trial comparing different remission induction strategies in treatment-naïve patients with early RA. For this study, we included participants who achieved low disease activity (LDA) (DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2) between 40 to 52 weeks after starting a combination of MTX, LEF, and a prednisone bridging scheme followed by a treat-to-target approach. Patients were re-randomized to a maintenance monotherapy of either MTX 15 mg weekly or LEF 20 mg daily. Remission rates (DAS28-CRP

To quantify the prevalence of co-morbidities in patients with early RA and determine their prognostic value for effectiveness outcomes in a randomized trial.We included patients from the 2-year pragmatic randomized CareRA trial, who had early RA (diagnosis 1 year), were DMARD naïve and then treated-to-target with different remission induction schemes. Prevalence of co-morbidities was registered at baseline and the Rheumatic Diseases Comorbidity Index (RDCI; range 0-9) was calculated. We tested the relation between baseline RDCI and outcomes including disease activity (DAS28-CRP), physical function (HAQ index), quality of life (SF-36 domains) and hospitalizations over 2 years, using linear mixed models or generalized estimating equations models.Of 379 included patients, 167 (44%) had a RDCI of minimum 1. RDCI scores of 1, 2 or ≥3 were obtained in 65 (17%), 70 (19%), and 32 (8%) participants, respectively. The most frequent co-morbidity was hypertension (22%). Patients with co-morbidities had significantly higher HAQ (β = 0.215; 95% CI: 0.071, 0.358), DAS28-CRP (β = 0.225; 95% CI: 0.132, 0.319) and lower SF-36 physical component summary scores (β =-3.195; 95% CI: -4.844, -1.546) over 2 years than patients without co-morbidities, after adjusting for possible confounders including disease activity and randomized treatment. Patients with co-morbidities had over time lower chances of achieving remission (OR = 0.724; 95% CI: 0.604, 0.867) and a higher risk of hospitalization (OR = 3.725; 95% CI: 2.136, 6.494).At disease onset, almost half of RA patients had at least one clinically important co-morbidity. Having co-morbidities was associated with worse functionality and disease activity outcomes over 2 years, despite intensive remission induction treatment.Clinical trials NCT01172639.

Early temporary reimbursement (ETR) schemes for new interventions targeting high unmet needs are increasingly applied in pharmaceutical policy. Crucial for these schemes is the assessment of unmet healthcare needs of patients and society. This study develops and tests a multi-criteria decision approach (MCDA) for assessing therapeutic and societal needs. The Belgian unmet needs commission, responsible for creating a list of unmet needs for the ETR programme, has tested this methodology to assess the needs in eight health conditions. For therapeutic need, three criteria were included (impact of the condition on quality of life and on life expectancy and inconvenience of current treatment); for societal need two criteria (condition-related healthcare expenditures per patient, prevalence). The results show that the proposed MCDA is feasible and acceptable for the unmet needs commission. Clear definitions of the criteria and regular repetition of these is needed to avoid variable interpretation of the criteria by the commission members. Quality assessment of the evidence is desired. Rankings resulting from the application have face validity. Considering therapeutic need separately from societal need is considered appropriate. Policy makers should consider the use of MCDA in assessing healthcare needs. MCDA improves the transparency and accountability of the decision making processes and is practical and feasible.

OBJECTIVE: Treating early, intensively, and to target leads to rapid disease control, preventing joint damage and loss of function in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We report the effect of such an approach on patient-reported outcomes and explore the contribution of rapid and persistent disease control to well-being after 1 year of treatment. METHODS: This study is part of the Care in Early RA trial, a prospective, 2-year, investigator-initiated, randomized controlled trial rooted in daily practice and implementing the treat-to-target principle. Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey and Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) data were collected prospectively. We defined 4 clinical response profiles based on speed and consistency of the treatment response within the first year, defined as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level

Objective To unravel the perspective of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on preferred health and treatment outcomes at 2 time points during the early stage of their disease and treatment. Methods In a longitudinal, qualitative, explorative study, we individually interviewed 26 patients with early RA (ERA) 4–6 months after the start of initial RA treatment. Fourteen of these participants took part in 1 of 3 focus groups at least 1 year after treatment initiation. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the constant comparison method. Two patient researchers completed the interdisciplinary research team. Results Patients with ERA ultimately strive to be normal again, literally and figuratively. Outcome preferences inherent to this urge for normality were related to aspects of disease control, physical aspects, aspects of participation, and mental aspects. Initially, patient outcome preferences in ERA were primarily related to pain relief, medication side effects and burden, and emotional well-being. Patient-preferred outcomes evolved over the ERA disease course, with subtle changes in terminology used by participants and with pain relief staying in the foreground. Conclusion From a patient perspective, normality is the ultimate outcome to target in ERA. Our study produced knowledge for designing more targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at normalizing patients’ health and life in all its aspects during a crucial phase of RA.

Item does not contain fulltext The objectives of the study were to determine the relative importance of barriers related to the provision of intensive combination treatment strategies with glucocorticoids (ICTS-GCs) in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) from the rheumatologists' perspective and to explore the relation between rheumatologists' characteristics and importance scores. A maximum difference scaling (MDS) survey was administered to 66 rheumatologists in Flanders and the Brussels-Capital Region. The survey included 25 barriers, previously being discovered in a qualitative study. The survey included 25 choice sets, each of which contained a different set of four barriers. In each choice situation, respondents were asked to choose the most important barrier. The mean relative importance score (RIS) for each barrier was calculated using hierarchical Bayes modeling. The potential relation between rheumatologists' characteristics and the RIS was examined using Spearman's correlation coefficient, Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis H test. The three highest ranked barriers included "contraindicated for some patients (e.g., patients with comorbidities, older patients)," "an increased risk of side effects and related complications," and "patients' resistance" with a mean +/- SD RIS of 9.76 +/- 0.82, 8.50 +/- 1.17, and 7.45 +/- 1.22, respectively. Comparing the RISs based on rheumatologists' characteristics, a different ranking was found for three barriers depending on the age, university location, and/or frequency of prescribing ICTS-GCs. The dominant barriers hindering ICTS-GCs prescription from a rheumatologists' perspective are patient-related barriers and barriers related to the complexity of prescribing a combination therapy including GCs. A tailored improvement intervention is needed to overcome these barriers and should focus on the familiarity of rheumatologists with ICTS-GC and patient education.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of intensive combination strategies with glucocorticoids (GCs) in the first 16 weeks (W) of early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) treatment, focusing on high-risk patients, in the Care in early RA trial.Methods400 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive patients with eRA were recruited and stratified into high risk or low risk according to classical prognostic markers. High-risk patients (n=290) were randomised to 1/3 treatment strategies: combination therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis (COBRA) Classic (methotrexate (MTX)+ sulfasalazine+60 mg prednisone tapered to 7.5 mg daily from W7), COBRA Slim (MTX+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6) and COBRA Avant-Garde (MTX+leflunomide+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6). Treatment modifications to target low-disease activity were mandatory from W8, if desirable and feasible according to the rheumatologist. The primary outcome was remission (28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein ResultsData from 98 Classic, 98 Slim and 94 Avant-Garde patients were analysed. At W16, remission was reached in 70.4% Classic, 73.6% Slim and 68.1% Avant-Garde patients (p=0.713). Likewise, no significant differences were shown in other secondary endpoints. However, therapy-related AEs were reported in 61.2% of Classic, in 46.9% of Slim and in 69.1% of Avant-Garde patients (p=0.006).ConclusionsFor high-risk eRA, MTX associated with a moderate step-down dose of GCs was as effective in inducing remission at W16 as DMARD combination therapies with moderate or high step-down GC doses and it showed a more favourable short-term safety profile.EudraCT number:2008-007225-39.

International audience; Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Objective.Our study describes the 10-year followup data of the Belgian Expanded Access Program (EAP) for infliximab (IFX), which included patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who were refractory to methotrexate. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the continuation rate, reasons for discontinuation, and longterm disease control under IFX treatment, and to study baseline characteristics associated with longterm successful IFX therapy.Methods.Between February 2000 and September 2001, 511 patients were enrolled in the Belgian IFX EAP, and 507 effectively started IFX therapy. Previously reported data showed that 160 patients were still treated with IFX after 7 years of followup. We describe the therapy status, reasons for IFX discontinuation, and the level of disease activity of this subgroup after 10 years of followup. Baseline characteristics of the total EAP cohort were used to describe variables associated with longterm successful IFX treatment.Results.After 10 years of followup, 110 of the 507 patients (21.7%) were still receiving IFX treatment. In the 7-year to 10-year period, which is the focus of the current study, 16 patients were lost to followup and 34 patients discontinued IFX treatment, mainly because of loss of efficacy. Patients successfully treated with IFX for 10 years had lower baseline values for 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), patient pain scale, physician visual analog scale, and Health Assessment Questionnaire in comparison with the rest of the study cohort. The mean DAS28 level of the subgroup still taking IFX after 10 years was 2.55 ± 1.01.Conclusion.In the Belgian EAP, 21.7% of patients continued to receive maintenance IFX treatment after 10 years of followup. IFX provided good longterm disease control in these patients.