Objectives To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy.Methods Data from the BeSt... Show moreObjectives To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy.Methods Data from the BeSt, CareRA and COBRA trials were combined in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We compared GC use between bridgers and non-bridgers at 12, 18 and 24 months from baseline with mixed-effects regression analysis. Secondary outcomes were mean cumulative GC dose until 24 months after baseline with and without the bridging period, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) over time and number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) changes.Results 252/625 patients (40%) were randomised to GC bridging (bridgers). Excluding the period of bridging, later GC use was low in both groups and cumulative doses were similar. Mean DAS28 was similar between the groups, but bridgers improved more rapidly (p<0.001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.94)). GC use was higher in the bridgers at t=12 months (OR 3.27 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.08)) and the bridging schedules resulted in a difference in cumulative GC dose of 2406 mg (95% CI 1403 to 3408) over 24 months.Conclusion In randomised trials comparing GC bridging and no GC bridging, bridgers had a more rapid clinical improvement, fewer DMARD changes and similar late use of GC compared with non-bridgers. GC bridging per protocol resulted, as could be expected, in a higher cumulative GC dose over 2 years. Show less
Heijde, D. van der; Baraliakos, X.; Sieper, J.; Deodhar, A.; Inman, R.D.; Kameda, H.; ... ; Song, I.H. 2022
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with an inadequate response (IR) to biological disease... Show moreObjectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with an inadequate response (IR) to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Methods: Adults with active AS who met modified New York criteria and had an IR to one or two bDMARDs (tumour necrosis factor or interleukin-17 inhibitors) were randomised 1:1 to oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) response at week 14. Sequentially tested secondary endpoints included Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity score, Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada MRI spine inflammation score, total back pain, nocturnal back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score. Results are reported from the 14-week double-blind treatment period. Results: A total of 420 patients with active AS were randomised (upadacitinib 15 mg, n=211; placebo, n=209). Significantly more patients achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40 at week 14 with upadacitinib vs placebo (45% vs 18%; p<0.0001). Statistically significant improvements were observed with upadacitinib vs placebo for all multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints (p<0.0001). Adverse events were reported for 41% of upadacitinib-treated and 37% of placebo-treated patients through week 14. No events of malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism or deaths were reported with upadacitinib. Conclusion: Upadacitinib 15 mg was significantly more effective than placebo over 14 weeks of treatment in bDMARD-IR patients with active AS. No new safety risks were identified with upadacitinib. Show less
Objectives Perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on risk and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases ... Show moreObjectives Perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on risk and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods Literature was searched up to 31 May 2021, including (randomised) controlled trials and observational studies with patients with RMD. Pending quality assessment, data extraction was performed and risk of bias (RoB) was assessed. Quality assessment required provision of (1) an appropriate COVID-19 case definition, and (2a) a base incidence (for incidence data) or (2b) a comparator, >10 cases with the outcome and risk estimates minimally adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities (for risk factor data). Results Of 5165 records, 208 were included, of which 90 passed quality assessment and data were extracted for incidence (n=42), risk factor (n=42) or vaccination (n=14). Most studies had unclear/high RoB. Generally, patients with RMDs do not face more risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 (n=26 studies) or worse prognosis of COVID-19 (n=14) than individuals without RMDs. No consistent differences in risk of developing (severe) COVID-19 were found between different RMDs (n=19). Disease activity is associated with worse COVID-19 prognosis (n=2), possibly explaining the increased risk seen for glucocorticoid use (n=13). Rituximab is associated with worse COVID-19 prognosis (n=7) and possibly Janus kinase inhibitors (n=3). Vaccination is generally immunogenic, though antibody responses are lower than in controls. Vaccine immunogenicity is negatively associated with older age, rituximab and mycophenolate. Conclusion This SLR informed the July 2021 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of RMDs in the context of SARS-CoV-2. Show less
Objectives To evaluate the analysis and reporting of comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology, informing European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology points... Show moreObjectives To evaluate the analysis and reporting of comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology, informing European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology points to consider. Methods We performed a systematic literature review searching Ovid MEDLINE for original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies, published in key rheumatology journals between 2008 and 2019. The extracted information focused on reporting and types of analyses. We evaluated if year of publication impacted results. Results From 9969 abstracts reviewed, 211 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Ten per cent of studies did not adjust for confounding factors. Some studies did not explain how they chose covariates for adjustment (9%), used bivariate screening (21%) and/or stepwise selection procedures (18%). Only 33% studies reported the number of patients lost to follow-up and 25% acknowledged attrition (drop-out or treatment cessation). To account for attrition, studies used non-responder imputation, followed by last observation carried forward (LOCF) and complete case (CC) analyses. Most studies did not report the number of missing data on covariates (83%), and when addressed, 49% used CC and 11% LOCF. Date of publication did not influence the results. Conclusion Most studies did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a tenth did not adjust for any confounding factors. When attempting to account for them, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, CC analysis, bivariate screening horizontal ellipsis ). This study shows that there is no improvement over the last decade, highlighting the need for recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology. Show less
Tanaka, Y.; Takeuchi, T.; Soen, S.; Yamanaka, H.; Yoneda, T.; Tanaka, S.; ... ; Heijde, D. van der 2021
Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of long-term denosumab 60 mg every 6 months (Q6M) or every 3 months (Q3M) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. This 12-month,... Show moreObjective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of long-term denosumab 60 mg every 6 months (Q6M) or every 3 months (Q3M) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. This 12-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase III trial with an open-label extension period from 12 to 36 months (DESIRABLE) enrolled Japanese patients with RA treated with placebo (P) for 12 months followed by either denosumab Q6M (P/Q6M) or denosumab Q3M (P/Q3M) for 24 months; denosumab Q6M for 36 months (Q6M/Q6M); or denosumab Q3M for 36 months (Q3M/Q3M). Efficacy was assessed by van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (mTSS), bone erosion score (BES), and joint space narrowing (JSN) score. Results. Long-term treatment better maintained mTSS and BES suppression in the P/Q3M and Q3M/ Q3M vs P/Q6M and Q6M/Q6M groups; changes from baseline in total mTSS (standard error) at 36 months were 2.8 (0.4) and 1.7 (0.3) vs 3.0 (0.4) and 2.4 (0.3), respectively, and corresponding changes in BES were 1.3 (0.2) and 0.4 (0.2) vs 1.4 (0.2) and 1.1 (0.2), respectively. No JSN effect was observed. Bone mineral density consistently increased in all groups after denosumab initiation, regardless of concomitant glucocorticoid administration. Serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen decreased rapidly at 1 month postdenosumab administration (in both the initial 12-month [Q3M and Q6M groups] and long-term treatment [P/Q3M and P/Q6M groups] phases). Adverse event incidence leading to study drug discontinuation was similar across treatment groups. Conclusion. Denosumab treatment maintained inhibition of progression of joint destruction up to 36 months. Based on effects on BES progression, higher dosing frequency at an earlier treatment stage may be needed to optimize treatment. Denosumab was generally well tolerated. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01973569). Show less
Deodhar, A.; Sliwinska-Stanczyk, P.; Xu, H.J.; Baraliakos, X.; Gensler, L.S.; Fleishaker, D.; ... ; Heijde, D. van der 2021
Objective To assess the efficacy/safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Methods This phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled... Show moreObjective To assess the efficacy/safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Methods This phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged >= 18 years diagnosed with active AS, meeting the modified New York criteria, with centrally read radiographs, and an inadequate response or intolerance to >= 2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day or placebo for 16 weeks. After week 16, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48. The primary and key secondary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society >= 20% improvement (ASAS20) and >= 40% improvement (ASAS40) responses, respectively, at week 16. Safety was assessed throughout.Results 269 patients were randomised and treated: tofacitinib, n=133; placebo, n=136. At week 16, the ASAS20 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (56.4%, 75 of 133) versus placebo (29.4%, 40 of 136), and the ASAS40 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (40.6%, 54 of 133) versus placebo (12.5%, 17 of 136). Up to week 16, with tofacitinib and placebo, respectively, 73 of 133 (54.9%) and 70 of 136 (51.5%) patients had adverse events; 2 of 133 (1.5%) and 1 of 136 (0.7%) had serious adverse events. Up to week 48, with tofacitinib, 3 of 133 (2.3%) patients had adjudicated hepatic events, 3 of 133 (2.3%) had non-serious herpes zoster, and 1 of 133 (0.8%) had a serious infection; with placebo -> tofacitinib, 2 (1.5%) patients had non-serious herpes zoster. There were no deaths, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events or opportunistic infections.Conclusions In adults with active AS, tofacitinib demonstrated significantly greater efficacy versus placebo. No new potential safety risks were identified. Show less
Combe, B.; Kivitz, A.; Tanaka, Y.; Heijde, D. van der; Simon, J.A.; Baraf, H.S.B.; ... ; Nash, P. 2021
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1-preferential inhibitor filgotinib versus placebo or tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy in patients with active... Show moreObjective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1-preferential inhibitor filgotinib versus placebo or tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite ongoing treatment with methotrexate (MTX).Methods This 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled phase III trial evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in patients with RA randomised 3:3:2:3 to filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) or filgotinib 100 mg (FIL100), subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo (through week 24), all with stable weekly background MTX. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Additional efficacy outcomes were assessed sequentially. Safety was assessed from adverse events and laboratory abnormalities.Results The proportion of patients (n=1755 randomised and treated) achieving ACR20 at week 12 was significantly higher for FIL200 (76.6%) and FIL100 (69.8%) versus placebo (49.9%; treatment difference (95% CI), 26.7% (20.6% to 32.8%) and 19.9% (13.6% to 26.2%), respectively; both p<0.001). Filgotinib was superior to placebo in key secondary endpoints assessing RA signs and symptoms, physical function and structural damage. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab in terms of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C reactive protein <= 3.2 at week 12 (p<0.001); FIL100 did not achieve non-inferiority. Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were comparable among active treatment arms.Conclusions Filgotinib improved RA signs and symptoms, improved physical function, inhibited radiographic progression and was well tolerated in patients with RA with inadequate response to MTX. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab. Show less
Westhovens, R.; Rigby, W.F.C.; Heijde, D. van der; Ching, D.W.T.; Stohl, W.; Kay, J.; ... ; Burmester, G.R. 2021
Objectives To investigate efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1 inhibitor filgotinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with limited or no prior methotrexate (MTX) exposure... Show moreObjectives To investigate efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1 inhibitor filgotinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with limited or no prior methotrexate (MTX) exposure.MethodsThis 52-week, phase 3, multicentre, double-blind clinical trial (NCT02886728) evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in 1252 patients with RA randomised 2:1:1:2 to filgotinib 200 mg with MTX (FIL200 +MTX), filgotinib 100 mg with MTX (FIL100 +MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or MTX. The primary endpoint was proportion achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 24.ResultsThe primary endpoint was achieved by 81% of patients receiving FIL200+ MTX versus 71% receiving MTX (p<0.001). A significantly greater proportion treated with FIL100+ MTX compared with MTX achieved an ACR20 response (80%, p=0.017) at week 24. Significant improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index was seen at week 24; least-squares mean change from baseline was -1.0 and -0.94 with FIL200+MTX and FIL100+MTX, respectively, versus -0.81 with MTX (p<0.001, p=0.008, respectively). Significantly higher proportions receiving FIL200+MTX (54%) and FIL100+MTX (43%) achieved DAS28(CRP) <2.6 versus MTX (29%) (p<0.001 for both) at week 24. Hierarchical testing stopped for comparison of ACR20 for FIL200 monotherapy (78%) versus MTX (71%) at week 24 (p=0.058). Adverse event rates through week 52 were comparable between all treatments.ConclusionsFIL200+MTX and FIL100+MTX both significantly improved signs and symptoms and physical function in patients with active RA and limited or no prior MTX exposure; FIL200 monotherapy did not have a superior ACR20 response rate versus MTX. Filgotinib was well tolerated, with acceptable safety compared with MTX. Show less
Background The CHIC study (COVID-19 High-intensity Immunosuppression in Cytokine storm syndrome) is a quasi-experimental treatment study exploring immunosuppressive treatment versus supportive... Show moreBackground The CHIC study (COVID-19 High-intensity Immunosuppression in Cytokine storm syndrome) is a quasi-experimental treatment study exploring immunosuppressive treatment versus supportive treatment only in patients with COVID-19 with life-threatening hyperinflammation. Causal inference provides a means of investigating causality in non-randomised experiments. Here we report 14-day improvement as well as 30-day and 90-day mortality. Patients and methods The first 86 patients (period 1) received optimal supportive care only; the second 86 patients (period 2) received methylprednisolone and (if necessary) tocilizumab, in addition to optimal supportive care. The main outcomes were 14-day clinical improvement and 30-day and 90-day survival. An 80% decline in C reactive protein (CRP) was recorded on or before day 13 (CRP >100 mg/L was an inclusion criterion). Non-linear mediation analysis was performed to decompose CRP-mediated effects of immunosuppression (defined as natural indirect effects) and non-CRP-mediated effects attributable to natural prognostic differences between periods (defined as natural direct effects). Results The natural direct (non-CRP-mediated) effects for period 2 versus period 1 showed an OR of 1.38 (38% better) for 14-day improvement and an OR of 1.16 (16% better) for 30-day and 90-day survival. The natural indirect (CRP-mediated) effects for period 2 showed an OR of 2.27 (127% better) for 14-day improvement, an OR of 1.60 (60% better) for 30-day survival and an OR of 1.49 (49% better) for 90-day survival. The number needed to treat was 5 for 14-day improvement, 9 for survival on day 30, and 10 for survival on day 90. Conclusion Causal inference with non-linear mediation analysis further substantiates the claim that a brief but intensive treatment with immunosuppressants in patients with COVID-19 and systemic hyperinflammation adds to rapid recovery and saves lives. Causal inference is an alternative to conventional trial analysis, when randomised controlled trials are considered unethical, unfeasible or impracticable. Show less
