Rheumatology and Therapy最新文献

This commentary explores the potential cardiovascular (CV) benefits of combining methotrexate (MTX) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While European guidelines recommend MTX as first-line treatment, concerns about the CV risks associated with JAKis have emerged. This article reviews the existing literature to assess the role of concomitant MTX in reducing CV risk when used with JAKis. Clinical trials confirm the efficacy of JAKis in combination with MTX in terms of treatment outcomes in RA. However, the number of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) reported is too low to draw conclusions on adverse CV outcomes. Indirect evidence does, however, suggest potential protective effects of MTX on CV outcomes, as several mechanisms may contribute to MTX's cardioprotective effects, including reduced inflammation, adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) activation, increased cholesterol efflux, and adenosine accumulation. These mechanisms and the available data may support the case for CV benefits of concomitant MTX when JAKis are used in the treatment of patients with RA, although further research is needed. In particular, the lipid paradox associated with RA highlights the complex relationship between RA treatments (MTX, JAKis, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and interleukin (IL)-6 receptor inhibitors), inflammation, different lipid profiles, and CV risk. In the absence of contraindications and when MTX is tolerated, this commentary suggests the concomitant use of MTX and JAKis as a preferred option for optimizing CV protection in patients with RA.

Introduction: There are limited data on the use of advanced therapies to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Russia. Guselkumab, an interleukin (IL)-23p19-subunit inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in patients with PsA in the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 and -2, and COSMOS trials. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with PsA in Russia.

Methods: This post hoc analysis of DISCOVER-1 and -2 included 1002 biologic-naïve patients with active PsA from Russia (n = 317) and the rest of the world (RoW; n = 685). Patients received guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), or at week 0 and 4 then Q8W, or placebo then guselkumab Q4W at week 24 (Russian: n = 119, 88, and 110, respectively; RoW: n = 216, 246, and 223, respectively). Outcomes through week 52 were pooled (DISCOVER-1 and -2); outcomes from week 52 to 100 represent DISCOVER-2 only.

Results: In patients from Russia, ≥ 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria response rates were higher with guselkumab vs. placebo at week 24, increased through week 52, and were consistent across all guselkumab-treated groups at week 100. Similar trends were generally observed for ACR50, ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), achievement of Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) low disease activity/remission and minimal disease activity, enthesitis and dactylitis resolution, ≥ 0.35 improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, improvement in patient-reported pain, and measures in patients with axial PsA (including Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI], Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS], and patient-reported spinal pain). Efficacy responses were similar between patients from Russia and the RoW across all endpoints and timepoints. The safety profile of guselkumab in patients from Russia was consistent with previous findings.

Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated that the safety and efficacy profiles of guselkumab across all PsA domains and patient-reported outcomes in patients from Russia were similar to those in patients from the RoW.

Trial registration numbers: NCT03162796 and NCT03158285.

Introduction: Several clinical outcome assessment (COA) instruments assess Sjögren's disease (Sjögren's) symptoms, but do not provide comprehensive assessment of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of Sjögren's. This study aimed to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for the assessment of HRQoL, intended for use in clinical trials and clinical practice in the assessment of treatment benefit.

Methods: Review of study sponsor proprietary data and qualitative interviews informed the development of a conceptual model, the Sjögren's Related Quality of Life (SRQoL) and patient global impression of severity (PGI-S) and change (PGI-C) items. Combined concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients with Sjögren's explored their HRQoL impact experience and content validity of the SRQoL and PGI items.

Results: Twenty participants were interviewed about their Sjögren's experience. Following inductive analysis of interviews, concepts were categorized into eight domains: emotional well-being (e.g., worry and stress; n = 20/20; 100%), sleep (e.g., daytime sleepiness and waking up during the night; n = 20/20; 100%), activities of daily living (e.g., difficulty looking at screens and difficulty driving; n = 20/20; 100%), cognition (e.g., concentration difficulties and word finding difficulties; n = 19/20; 95.0%), physical functioning (e.g., difficulty walking and difficulty exercising; n = 19/20; 95.0%), social and family functioning (e.g., dependent on others and relationship difficulties; n = 17/20; 85.0%), work (n = 15/20; 75.0%), and sexual functioning (n = 12/20; 60.0%). SRQoL and PGI items, instructions, response options, and recall period were well understood and relevant to participants.

Conclusions: The SRQoL is a new PRO instrument to assess Sjögren's impact on HRQoL, developed in accordance with regulatory guidance. This study provides considerable insight into the patient experience of Sjögren's and evidence to support the content validity of the SRQoL. Future research should evaluate the psychometric properties of the SRQoL to support its use in clinical trials and clinical practice and further validate its use as an assessment of treatment benefit.

Introduction: ORAL Surveillance, a post-authorisation safety study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enriched for cardiovascular (CV) risk, demonstrated increased risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) and malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) for tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). This analysis of a real-world Canadian observational study evaluated tofacitinib safety/effectiveness in patients meeting or not meeting CV risk criteria.

Methods: CANTORAL included patients with moderate-to-severe RA initiating tofacitinib (10/2017-07/2020; N = 504). Interim data (data-cut: 07/2021) were stratified as CV risk-enriched (CV+ ; patients ≥ 50 years with ≥ 1 additional CV risk factor) or not CV risk-enriched (CV-; ≥ 50 years without additional CV risk factors and 18-49 years with/without CV risk factors). Safety and persistence were evaluated to month (M) 36. Effectiveness outcomes to M18 included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA)/remission (CANTORAL co-primary endpoints) and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein (DAS28-4[CRP]) < 3.2/ < 2.6.

Results: Overall, 272/232 patients were included in CV+ /CV- cohorts (full analysis set) (435/356 patient-years [safety analysis set]). Incidence rates (events/100 patient-years) in CV+ /CV- cohorts were 138.5/112.5 for treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs); 17.0/5.6 for serious AEs; 1.2/0.3 for deaths; 5.5/1.7 for serious infections; 1.4/1.1 for herpes zoster; 1.6/0.0 for MACE; 2.1/0.3 for malignancies (excluding NMSC); 0.7/0.6 for NMSC; 0.5/0.0 for venous thromboembolic events. Persistence was generally comparable between cohorts. In CV+ /CV- cohorts, at M6, CDAI LDA and remission rates were 51.5%/54.6% and 12.0%/19.6%; DAS28-4(CRP) < 3.2/ < 2.6 rates were 44.0%/39.3% and 31.5%/28.8%, respectively; effectiveness was generally maintained to M18.

Conclusions: In concordance with studies of background risk, AEs were more common in patients with CV risk enrichment, particularly those aged ≥ 65 years. Tofacitinib effectiveness/persistence were generally similar regardless of CV risk enrichment. These findings support individualised treatment benefit-risk assessment, including CV assessment/management, to optimise RA outcomes.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the musculoskeletal system, skin and nails. In addition to peripheral joints, inflammation of the spine and sacroiliac joints may occur. Yet, research into this axial phenotype has lagged behind partly because of the challenge in its clinical identification with a lack of specific clinical, molecular or imaging biomarkers. In the absence of a validated definition of what constitutes axial PsA (axPsA), guidelines for the management of axial involvement in PsA in clinical practice are scarce. On the basis of a literature review and their clinical expertise, a group of rheumatology experts provide their opinion to aid the diagnosis and management of axial PsA in clinical practice.

Introduction: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, autoimmune form of arthritis that is associated with a substantial humanistic and economic burden. Potential differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and economic outcomes among groups of varying PsA severity and different races/ethnicities have not been well studied.

Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed sociodemographic data, PROs, and economic outcomes for participants with PsA from the National Health and Wellness Survey (2018-2020). Multivariable analyses were used to assess the association of self-reported PsA severity and race/ethnicity with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and medical costs.

Results: This study included 1544 participants with PsA (1073 non-Hispanic white, 114 non-Hispanic Black, 223 Hispanic, and 134 Other). Self-reported moderate/severe PsA was associated with significantly worse HRQoL and WPAI, greater HCRU, and higher costs than self-reported mild PsA. Black participants reported more absenteeism (31.11% vs. 16.69%; P = 0.007) and activity impairment (54.27% vs. 47.96%; P = 0.047) than white participants, and fewer healthcare provider (5.93 vs. 7.42; P = 0.039) and rheumatologist visits (0.29 vs. 0.53; P = 0.028) over the past 6 months. No differences in outcomes were observed between Hispanic and white participants. Race/ethnicity moderated the association of perceived PsA severity and PROs and HCRU, such that white participants with self-reported moderate/severe PsA had a higher likelihood of depression (P < 0.001), lower HRQoL (P < 0.001), and more emergency room visits (P = 0.001) than those with self-reported mild PsA. Race/ethnicity did not moderate the relationship of PROs, HCRU, and economic outcomes among Black or Hispanic participants.

Conclusion: Participants with self-reported moderate/severe PsA reported a greater burden than those with self-reported mild PsA. Black participants had a greater humanistic burden than white participants but reported lower HCRU. Moderation results were driven by white participants, suggesting important differences in PROs, HCRU, and perception of PsA severity across race/ethnicity groups. Small sample sizes in Hispanic and non-Hispanic racial/ethnic groups limited ability to discern differences related to disease severity in these groups. Further research is needed to better understand the differential burden of PsA among individuals with varying perceptions of PsA severity across different racial/ethnic groups.

Introduction: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess the relative efficacy at 52 weeks (Wk52) of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or who had a previous inadequate response or an intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Methods: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from the bimekizumab trials BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data on patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 1 trial (NCT01009086; 45 mg, N = 205; 90 mg; N = 204) and a subgroup of TNFi-IR patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 2 trial (NCT01077362; 45 mg, N = 60; 90 mg, N = 58), respectively. Patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of the ustekinumab trial patients. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Non-placebo-adjusted comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and ustekinumab outcomes for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria (non-responder imputation) were analyzed.

Results: In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 45 mg: 2.14 [1.35, 3.40]; 90 mg: 1.98 [1.24, 3.16]), ACR50 (45 mg: 2.74 [1.75, 4.29]; 90 mg: 2.29 [1.48, 3.55]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 3.33 [2.04, 5.46]; 90 mg: 3.05 [1.89, 4.91]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (45 mg: 4.17 [2.13, 8.16]; 90 mg: 4.19 [2.07, 8.49]), ACR50 (45 mg: 5.00 [2.26, 11.05]; 90 mg: 3.86 [1.70, 8.79]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 9.85 [2.79, 34.79]; 90 mg: 6.29 [1.98, 20.04]).

Conclusions: Using MAIC, bimekizumab showed greater efficacy than ustekinumab in achieving all ACR responses in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

Trial registration: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT01009086, NCT01077362.

Introduction: The study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) complicated by rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: Patients with PMR which could be classified as RA and who were treated with bDMARDs were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was the clinical Polymyalgia Rheumatica Activity Score (Clin-PMR-AS) after 26 weeks of treatment, and the secondary endpoint was adverse events during the observation period.

Results: A total of 203 patients with PMR which was resistant or intolerant to glucocorticoids and could be classified as RA were receiving bDMARDs and were enrolled in the study. There were 83, 82, and 38 patients in the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor (IL-6Ri), and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-immunoglobulin (CTLA4-Ig) groups, respectively. Twenty-six weeks after bDMARD initiation, Clin-PMR-AS levels were significantly lower in the IL-6Ri group as compared to other groups. Multiple regression analysis was performed with Clin-PMR-AS as the objective variable. Body mass index (BMI), history of bDMARDs, and IL-6Ri use were identified as factors involved in Clin-PMR-AS. After adjustment for group characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity scores, the Clin-PMR-AS score at 26 weeks was significantly lower in the IL-6Ri group (9.0) than in both the TNFi (12.4, p = 0.004) and CTLA4-Ig (15.9, p = 0.003) group.

Conclusion: IL-6Ri may potentially improve the disease activity of PMR compared to other bDMARDs.

Introduction: High baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been associated with positive responses to biologic tumor necrosis factor inhibition and negative responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) triple therapy. Datasets from three randomized clinical trials in patients with RA were used to test the hypothesis that baseline NLR is associated with improved clinical response to filgotinib in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve or MTX-experienced RA populations.

Methods: Patients from FINCH 1 (inadequate response to MTX, MTX-IR; NCT02889796), FINCH 2 (inadequate response to biologic DMARDs; NCT02873936), and FINCH 3 (MTX-naïve; NCT02886728) were classified as baseline NLR-High or baseline NLR-Low based on a previously published cut point of 2.7. In total, 3365 patients were included across the three studies. Differences in clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were determined using linear-regression models.

Results: Control-arm patients (placebo + MTX/placebo + csDMARD) classified as NLR-High exhibited worse continuous clinical and PRO responses at week 12 across clinical trials compared to NLR-Low patients. In contrast, NLR-High patients who received FIL 200 mg + MTX/csDMARD exhibited consistently better responses after 12 weeks compared to NLR-Low patients across clinical trials, clinical endpoints, and PROs. These trends were most prominent among the MTX-IR population.

Conclusion: The 2.7 baseline NLR cut point could be used to enrich for patients most likely to benefit from the addition of filgotinib to background MTX/csDMARD. Use of baseline NLR as part of therapeutic decision-making would not require additional diagnostics and could contribute to improved outcomes for patients with RA.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02889796; NCT02873936; NCT02886728.

Introduction: The relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC).

Methods: Relevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons.

Results: In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]).

Conclusions: Using MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

Trial registration: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.