Background In a clinical trial setting, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) tofacitinib demonstrated higher adverse events rates compared with those... Show moreBackground In a clinical trial setting, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) tofacitinib demonstrated higher adverse events rates compared with those taking the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) adalimumab or etanercept.Objective Compare treatment discontinuations for adverse events (AEs) among second-line therapies in an international real-world RA population.Methods Patients initiating JAKi, TNFi or a biological with another mode of action (OMA) from 17 registers participating in the ‘JAK-pot’ collaboration were included. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs. We used unadjusted and adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models to compare treatment discontinuations for AEs among treatment groups by class, but also evaluating separately the specific type of JAKi.Results Of the 46 913 treatment courses included, 12 523 were JAKi (43% baricitinib, 40% tofacitinib, 15% upadacitinib, 2% filgotinib), 23 391 TNFi and 10 999 OMA. The adjusted cause-specific hazard rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs was similar for TNFi versus JAKi (1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10) and higher for OMA versus JAKi (1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23), lower with TNFi compared with tofacitinib (0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), but higher for TNFi versus baricitinib (1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30) and lower for TNFi versus JAKi in patients 65 or older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor (0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97).Conclusion While JAKi overall were not associated with more treatment discontinuations for AEs, subgroup analyses suggest varying patterns with specific JAKi, such as tofacitinib, compared with TNFi. However, these observations should be interpreted cautiously, given the observational study design. Show less
Smolen, J.S.; Landewe, R.B.M.; Bergstra, S.A.; Kerschbaumer, A.; Sepriano, A.; Aletaha, D.; ... ; Heijde, D. van der 2022
Objectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was... Show moreObjectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost. Show less
Smolen, J.S.; Landewe, R.B.M.; Bergstra, S.A.; Kerschbaumer, A.; Sepriano, A.; Aletaha, D.; ... ; Heijde, D. van der 2022
Objectives To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field.Methods An international task force was formed... Show moreObjectives To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field.Methods An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item.Results The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3–6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations.Conclusions These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost. Show less
Objectives: The expanded therapeutic arsenal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) raises new clinical questions. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cycling Janus kinase... Show moreObjectives: The expanded therapeutic arsenal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) raises new clinical questions. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cycling Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) with switching to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with RA after failure to the first JAKi. Methods: This is a nested cohort study within data pooled from an international collaboration of 17 national registries (JAK-pot collaboration). Data from patients with RA with JAKi treatment failure and who were subsequently treated with either a second JAKi or with a bDMARD were prospectively collected. Differences in drug retention rates after second treatment initiation were assessed by log-rank test and Cox regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders. Change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) over time was estimated using a linear regression model, adjusting for confounders. Results: 365 cycling and 1635 switching patients were studied. Cyclers were older and received a higher number of previous bDMARDs. Both strategies showed similar observed retention rates after 2 years of follow-up. However, adjusted analysis revealed that cycling was associated with higher retention (p=0.04). Among cyclers, when the first JAKi was discontinued due to an adverse event (AE), it was more likely that the second JAKi would also be stopped due to an AE. Improvement in CDAI over time was similar in both strategies. Conclusions: After failing the first JAKi, cycling JAKi and switching to a bDMARD appear to have similar effectiveness. Caution is advised if an AE was the reason to stop the first JAKi. Show less
Objectives The expanded therapeutic arsenal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) raises new clinical questions. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cycling Janus kinase... Show moreObjectives The expanded therapeutic arsenal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) raises new clinical questions. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cycling Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) with switching to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with RA after failure to the first JAKi.Methods This is a nested cohort study within data pooled from an international collaboration of 17 national registries (JAK-pot collaboration). Data from patients with RA with JAKi treatment failure and who were subsequently treated with either a second JAKi or with a bDMARD were prospectively collected. Differences in drug retention rates after second treatment initiation were assessed by log-rank test and Cox regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders. Change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) over time was estimated using a linear regression model, adjusting for confounders.Results 365 cycling and 1635 switching patients were studied. Cyclers were older and received a higher number of previous bDMARDs. Both strategies showed similar observed retention rates after 2 years of follow-up. However, adjusted analysis revealed that cycling was associated with higher retention (p=0.04). Among cyclers, when the first JAKi was discontinued due to an adverse event (AE), it was more likely that the second JAKi would also be stopped due to an AE. Improvement in CDAI over time was similar in both strategies.Conclusions After failing the first JAKi, cycling JAKi and switching to a bDMARD appear to have similar effectiveness. Caution is advised if an AE was the reason to stop the first JAKi. Show less
Background: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the... Show moreBackground: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6R alpha antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. Methods: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. Results: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. Conclusions: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers. Show less
Lauper, K.; Ludici, M.; Mongin, D.; Bergstra, S.A.; Choquette, D.; Codreanu, C.; ... ; Finckh, A. 2022
Background: JAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line... Show moreBackground: JAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line therapies of RA with different modes of action, since JAKi approval, in an international collaboration of 19 registers. Methods: In this observational cohort study, patients initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), abatacept (ABA) or JAKi were included. We compared the effectiveness of these treatments in terms of drug discontinuation and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response rates at 1 year. Analyses were adjusted for patient, disease and treatment characteristics, including lines of therapy and accounted for competing risk. Results: We included 31 846 treatment courses: 17 522 TNFi, 2775 ABA, 3863 IL-6i and 7686 JAKi. Adjusted analyses of overall discontinuation were similar across all treatments. The main single reason of stopping treatment was ineffectiveness. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were less often discontinued for ineffectiveness (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83), as was IL-6i (aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and more often for adverse events (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33). Adjusted CDAI response rates at 1 year were similar between TNFi, JAKi and IL-6i and slightly lower for ABA. Conclusion: The adjusted overall drug discontinuation and 1 year response rates of JAKi and IL-6i were similar to those observed with TNFi. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness, as were IL-6i. Show less
Courvoisier, D.S.; Lauper, K.; Kedra, J.; Wit, M. de; Fautrel, B.; Frisell, T.; ... ; Finckh, A. 2022
Background: Comparing treatment effectiveness over time in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias. Objectives: To develop European... Show moreBackground: Comparing treatment effectiveness over time in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias. Objectives: To develop European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology. Methods: The PtC were developed using a three-step process according to the EULAR Standard Operating Procedures. Based on a systematic review of methods currently used in comparative effectiveness studies, the PtC were formulated through two in-person meetings of a multidisciplinary task force and a two-round online Delphi, using expert opinion and a simulation study. Finally, feedback from a larger audience was used to refine the PtC. Mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated. Results: Three overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated, addressing, in particular, potential biases relating to attrition or confounding by indication. Building on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, these PtC insist on the definition of the baseline for analysis and treatment effectiveness. They also focus on the reasons for stopping treatment as an important consideration when assessing effectiveness. Finally, the PtC recommend providing key information on missingness patterns. Conclusion: To improve the reliability of an increasing number of real-world comparative effectiveness studies in rheumatology, special attention is required to reduce potential biases. Adherence to clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of observational comparative effectiveness studies will improve the trustworthiness of their results. 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
