Efficacy of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on efficacy of DMARDs (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) and inform the taskforce of the 2022 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This systematic literature review (SLR) investigated the efficacy of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b), biosimilar and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs in patients with RA. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science were used to identify all relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 to 14 January 2022.

RESULTS

Of 8969 search results, 169 articles were selected for detailed review and 47 were finally included. Trials investigated the efficacy of csDMARDs, bDMARDs and tsDMARDs, DMARD switching, tapering and trials investigating different treatment strategies. The compounds investigated were csDMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), bDMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, denosumab, etanercept, infliximab, levilimab, olokizumab, opineracept, rituximab, sarilumab, tocilizumab) and tsDMARDs (baricitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The efficacy of csDMARDs+ short-term glucocorticoids in early RA was confirmed and similar to bDMARD+MTX combination therapy. Interleukin-6 pathway inhibition was effective in trials on olokizumab and levilimab. Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) was efficacious in different patient populations. After insufficient response to JAKi, patients could respond to TNFi treatment. Tapering of DMARDs was feasible for a proportion of patients, who were able to taper therapy while remaining in low disease activity or remission.

CONCLUSION

The results of this SLR, together with one SLR on safety of DMARD and one on glucocorticoids, informed the taskforce of the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for pharmacological management of RA.

Efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on GC efficacy were identified from a separate search on the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A combined search was performed for the duration of use and safety of GCs in RA patients. Dose-defined and time-defined GC treatment of any dose and duration (excluding intra-articular GCs) prescribed in combination with other DMARDs were considered. Results are presented descriptively. Two included studies confirmed the efficacy of GC bridging as initial therapy, with equal efficacy after 2 years of initial doses of 30 mg/day compared with 60 mg/day prednisone. Based on a recently performed SLR, in clinical trials most patients starting initial GC bridging are able to stop GCs within 12 (22% patients continued on GCs) to 24 months (10% patients continued on GCs). The safety search included 12 RCTs and 21 observational studies. Well-known safety risks of GC use were confirmed, including an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, serious infections, diabetes and mortality. Data on cardiovascular outcomes were Inconsistent. Overall, safety risks increased with increasing dose and/or duration, but evidence on which dose is safe was conflicting. In conclusion, this SLR has confirmed the efficacy of GCs in the treatment of RA. In clinical trials, most patients have shown to be able to stop GCs within 12-24 months. Well-known safety risks of GC use have been confirmed, but with heterogeneity between studies.

Case report: Prader-Willi syndrome and inflammatory arthritis-An important consideration

Background

Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is a multisystemic genetically determined disorder. Musculoskeletal manifestations are common in most patients. We report the cases of two children with PWS who developed inflammatory arthritis, complicated with chronic anterior bilateral uveitis in one case. To our knowledge, no previous reports of such an association exist.

Case presentation

Case 1 was of a 3-year-old girl diagnosed with PWS who developed arthritis of the right knee with morning stiffness, joint swelling, and limited range of motion. Other causes of arthritis were ruled out. Increased inflammatory markers, antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity, and hypertrophic synovitis on ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis compatible with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Despite the treatment with methotrexate, arthritis progressed, and etanercept was added. The patient reached and maintained articular remission while on combined MTX and etanercept treatment during 9 years of follow-up. Case 2 was of a 6-year-old boy diagnosed with PWS who developed arthritis of the right knee. Laboratory investigations showed mildly increased acute phase reactants, microcytic anemia, and ANA positivity at high titer (titer 1:1,280). Infectious and other causes of arthritis were excluded. Ultrasound confirmed the presence of joint effusion and synovial thickening, and synovial fluid analysis was consistent with inflammatory arthrosynovitis (white blood cell count of 14,200/µl) compatible with JIA. Shortly after the diagnosis, the ophthalmologic evaluation revealed the presence of bilateral anterior uveitis. Despite MTX and topical corticosteroid, ocular inflammation persisted and adalimumab was added. At the last follow-up, 9 months later, the child experienced inactivity of arthritis and uveitis with normal growth.

Conclusions

We aim to raise awareness of this possible association among pediatricians since arthritis might be underestimated due to high pain tolerance, behavioral disturbances, and other musculoskeletal abnormalities in PWS patients.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic(s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention in RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments yet without, or limited, registry data, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine observational studies addressed the safety of DMARDs. Two studies (unclear risk of bias (RoB)) showed an increased risk of serious infections with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Herpes zoster infections occurred more with JAKi than csDMARDs (adjusted HR (aHR): 3.66) and bDMARDs (aHR: 1.9-2.3) (four studies, two low RoB). The risk of malignancies was similar across bDMARDs (five studies) and with tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs (one study, low RoB). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar with bDMARDs and tofacitinib (two studies, one low RoB). Thirty studies reported safety from RCTs, with one, designed to evaluate safety, showing that malignancies (HR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.04 to 2.09)) and MACE (HR (95% CI): 1.33 (0.91 to 1.94)) occurred numerically more frequently with tofacitinib (5 mg and 10 mg doses combined) than with TNFi in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. In this study, the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg than with TNFi.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of bDMARDs was further demonstrated. Whether the difference in incidence of malignancies, MACE and VTE between tofacitinib and TNFi applies to other JAKi needs further evaluation.

Efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on GC efficacy were identified from a separate search on the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A combined search was performed for the duration of use and safety of GCs in RA patients. Dose-defined and time-defined GC treatment of any dose and duration (excluding intra-articular GCs) prescribed in combination with other DMARDs were considered. Results are presented descriptively. Two included studies confirmed the efficacy of GC bridging as initial therapy, with equal efficacy after 2 years of initial doses of 30 mg/day compared with 60 mg/day prednisone. Based on a recently performed SLR, in clinical trials most patients starting initial GC bridging are able to stop GCs within 12 (22% patients continued on GCs) to 24 months (10% patients continued on GCs). The safety search included 12 RCTs and 21 observational studies. Well-known safety risks of GC use were confirmed, including an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, serious infections, diabetes and mortality. Data on cardiovascular outcomes were Inconsistent. Overall, safety risks increased with increasing dose and/or duration, but evidence on which dose is safe was conflicting. In conclusion, this SLR has confirmed the efficacy of GCs in the treatment of RA. In clinical trials, most patients have shown to be able to stop GCs within 12-24 months. Well-known safety risks of GC use have been confirmed, but with heterogeneity between studies.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update

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 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.

Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis: a real-world study of the application and impact of treat-to-target within the wider context of patient management, patient centricity and advanced therapy use in Europe

BACKGROUND

While treat-to-target (T2T) is endorsed for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), data on the degree of implementation in clinical practice are limited. This study investigated the use of T2T for RA in a real-world setting across Europe.

METHODS

The Adelphi RA Disease-Specific Programme was a point-in-time survey of rheumatologists and their consulting patients with RA conducted between January and October 2020 in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Rheumatologists completed an attitudinal survey, and a record form for their next 10-12 consulting patients, who were invited to voluntarily complete a patient-reported questionnaire. Data collected included clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and attitudes towards T2T.

RESULTS

Overall, 316 rheumatologists provided data for 3120 patients, of whom 1108 completed the questionnaire. While 86.1% of rheumatologists estimated using T2T principles in clinical practice, only 66.6% of patients were reported by their physician to be managed using a T2T approach. Achieving disease remission was the most commonly reported treatment goal identified by rheumatologists (79.7%), followed by symptom control (47.8%) and reducing impact on quality of life (44.5%). 40.8% of rheumatologists and their patients were in agreement that a treatment goal had been set. When there was agreement on treatment goals, we observed better patient satisfaction, engagement and treatment success.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recommendations, the T2T approach in RA appears to be suboptimally implemented in clinical practice. This highlights the importance of patient-centricity in the decision-making process to define meaningful targets and select appropriate treatments to improve disease outcomes.

Ultrasound versus physical examination in predicting disease flare in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis

In this systematic review we analyzed the published articles related to the predictive value for flare of subclinical synovitis assessed by ultrasound (US) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from 1990 to 2020 by two authors, using PICO methodology. The study is built and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Searches identified four articles comprising a total of 187 JIA patients in clinical remission from at least 3 months. Two of the articles found US subclinical signs of synovitis to be predictive for flare, with a five times higher risk (with Power Doppler signal as an important feature), while in the other two baseline US abnormalities did not predict a clinical flare. The articles differed for protocols, definitions, and length of follow-up. US has an expanding role in pediatric rheumatology, with interest-ing applications especially during the follow-up, potentially identifying subclinical inflammatory signs predictive of flare. However, the few studies available do not allow definite conclusions at this time.

Axial Spondyloarthritis: Reshape the Future-From the "2022 GISEA International Symposium"

The term "axial spondyloarthritis" (axSpA) refers to a group of chronic rheumatic diseases that predominantly involve the axial skeleton and consist of ankylosing spondylitis, reactive arthritis, arthritis/spondylitis associated with psoriasis (PsA) and arthritis/spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Moreover, pain is an important and common symptom of axSpA. It may progress to chronic pain, a more complicated bio-psychosocial phenomena, leading to a significant worsening of quality of life. The development of the axSpA inflammatory process is grounded in the complex interaction between genetic (such as HLA B27), epigenetic, and environmental factors associated with a dysregulated immune response. Considering the pivotal contribution of IL-23 and IL-17 in axSpA inflammation, the inhibition of these cytokines has been evaluated as a potential therapeutic strategy. With this context, here we discuss the main pathogenetic mechanisms, therapeutic approaches and the role of pain in axSpA from the 2022 International GISEA/OEG Symposium.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the management of patients with RA: a survey of rheumatologists in six European countries

Objective

We aimed to describe, from the perspective of rheumatologists in Europe, how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted their management of people with RA and the continuing medical education of physicians.

Methods

Rheumatologists participating in the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme^TM in six European countries were contacted in August and September 2020 for a telephone survey. Rheumatologists were asked seven attitudinal questions on changes to patient management, prescription behaviour and continuing education owing to COVID-19. Results were summarized with descriptive statistics.

Results

The telephone survey was completed by 284 rheumatologists. The most commonly reported changes to patient management were increased utilization of video/telephone consultations (66.5% of respondents), fewer visits (58.5%) and limiting physical contact (58.1%). Furthermore, 67.9% of rheumatologists who indicated that prescribing behaviour had changed switched their patients to self-administered medication, and 60.7% reported not starting patients on targeted synthetic DMARDs, biologic originator DMARDs or biosimilar DMARDs. In total, 57.6% of rheumatologists believed that changes in management would persist. Rheumatologists reported that 38.0% of patients expressed concerns about how COVID-19 would impact treatment, including access to treatment and the risk of infection. The biggest impact on rheumatologist education was a switch to online training and conferences.

Conclusion

All countries saw changes in patient management and prescribing behaviour, including the rapid uptake of telemedicine. It is important that the international rheumatology community learns from these experiences to prepare better for future pandemics and to address ongoing rheumatologist shortages.

Arthritis in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: From 2022 International GISEA/OEG Symposium

Musculoskeletal involvement is one of the most common manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with a negative impact on both quality of life and overall prognosis. SLE arthritis can be classified into three different subtypes, with different prevalence and characteristic biomarkers and MRI findings. Identifying the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying musculoskeletal manifestations’ development is crucial to develop therapeutic strategies to suppress synovial inflammation, prevent erosions and deformities, and improve SLE patients’ quality of life. Hence, here we discuss the main pathogenetic mechanisms and therapeutic approaches of musculoskeletal manifestations of SLE from the 2022 International GISEA/OEG Symposium.

Inflammatory correlates of the Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity vary in relation to disease duration and autoantibody status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the associations between the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and measures of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in relation to disease duration and autoantibody status.

METHODS

1412 patients from three independent cohorts were studied: a prospective cohort of 810 patients with early RA followed up for 24 months; a cross-sectional cohort of 210 patients with established RA in low disease activity; a cross-sectional cohort of 401 patients with established RA in moderate-to-high disease activity. Correlations of the PGA were analysed by Pearson's coefficients and multivariable linear regression at baseline and at months 6, 12 and 24 in the overall populations and after stratification for autoantibody subgroup and remission status (Boolean remission, PGA near remission and non-remission).

RESULTS

In patients with early RA in non-remission, swollen joints correlated independently with the PGA; the correlation became progressively weaker but persisted at all time points in autoantibody-positive patients (adjusted r=0.30-0.12) but lost significance after month 12 in autoantibody-negative patients. Swollen joints independently correlated with the PGA also in near remission until month 12 (adjusted r=0.18-0.16) in autoantibody-positive patients. No independent correlations of inflammatory variables were instead found in patients with established RA irrespective of disease activity and autoantibody status.

CONCLUSIONS

In the early phases of RA, particularly in autoantibody-positive patients, inflammatory variables directly correlate with the PGA across different disease activity states. The optimal cut-off values of the PGA capable of identifying absence of disease should be better explored in relation to disease duration and autoantibody status.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update

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 specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα 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.

Immunosuppressant Treatment in Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases Does Not Inhibit Elicitation of Humoral Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Preserves Effector Immune Cell Populations

COVID-19 has proven to be particularly serious and life-threatening for patients presenting with pre-existing pathologies. Patients affected by rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (RMD) are likely to have impaired immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 infection due to their compromised immune system and the prolonged use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), which include conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs or biologic and targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs. To provide an integrated analysis of the immune response following SARS-CoV-2 infection in RMD patients treated with different classes of DMARDs we carried out an immunological analysis of the antibody responses toward SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and RBD proteins and an extensive immunophenotypic analysis of the major immune cell populations. We showed that RMD individuals under most DMARD treatments mount a sustained antibody response to the virus, with neutralizing activity. In addition, they displayed a sizable percentage of effector T and B lymphocytes. Among b-DMARDs, we found that anti-TNFα treatments are more favorable drugs to elicit humoral and cellular immune responses as compared to CTLA4-Ig and anti-IL6R inhibitors. This study provides a whole picture of the humoral and cellular immune responses in RMD patients by reassuring the use of DMARD treatments during COVID-19. The study points to TNF-α inhibitors as those DMARDs permitting elicitation of functional antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and adaptive effector populations available to counteract possible re-infections.

Lessons learned from the preclinical discovery and development of sarilumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis is driven by a complex network of proinflammatory cytokines, among which interleukin-6 (IL-6) plays a key role in inducing and perpetuating chronic inflammation. Targeting the IL-6 pathway has shown to be an invaluable treatment strategy, as demonstrated by the results accrued in the last decade with the first IL-6 inhibitor, tocilizumab. More recently, a second monoclonal antibody blocking IL-6, sarilumab, has enriched our armamentarium by proving outstanding efficacy in RA treatment.

AREAS COVERED

After exploring the IL-6 pathway under physiological conditions and in the RA pathogenesis, in this review we discuss the pharmacologic properties of sarilumab and the clinical trials that constitute the sarilumab development program and have enabled its licensed application.

EXPERT OPINION

Results from clinical trials confirmed the efficacy and safety of sarilumab for the treatment of RA, similar to its precursor tocilizumab. Blocking IL-6 pathway results in comprehensive control of the disease, from both physician's and patient's perspective, and of RA comorbidities and extra-articular manifestations which are largely IL-6 driven. Finally, the proven efficacy of sarilumab as monotherapy arises the drug as a required therapeutic alternative considering the large proportion of patients intolerant or inadequate to receive conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (csDMARDs).

AB0344 EFFICACY OF SUBCUTANEOUS INFLIXIMAB (CT-P13 SC) COMPARED WITH INTRAVENOUS INFLIXIMAB IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A POST-HOC ANALYSIS OF A PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background

Subcutaneous (SC) CT-P13 is the first and only subcutaneous formulation of infliximab (IFX) approved by the EMA.1 In the pivotal study (NCT03147248), non-inferiority of SC IFX to intravenous (IV) was demonstrated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) C-reactive protein (CRP) improvement at Week 22, with a statistically significant treatment difference of 0.27 (95% CI 0.02, 0.52) favoring the SC versus the IV arm.2,3 At Week 30, numerical differences in efficacy outcomes were shown between SC and IV IFX favoring SC IFX. IV group patients switched to SC IFX by Week 30, and the difference between the groups was reduced at Week 54.2

Objectives

To investigate whether there was a statistically significant difference between SC and IV IFX at Weeks 30 and 54 in the phase 3 pivotal study of CT-P13 SC using conservative missing imputation methods.

Methods

Patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to MTX received IV IFX 3mg/kg at Weeks 0 and 2 for induction and were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive SC IFX 120mg every 2 weeks or IV 3mg/kg every 8 weeks thereafter for maintenance. Patients who were randomized to receive IV IFX switched to SC at Week 30. In this post-hoc analysis, non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observation carried forward (LOCF) methods were used to investigate whether the difference in efficacy outcomes between SC and IV IFX at Weeks 30 and 54 was statistically significant. Assessments included EULAR (CRP/ESR)/ACR response; remission rate and low disease activity (LDA) rate based on DAS28 (CRP/ESR), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI); Boolean remission rate; and the proportion of patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).

Results

Of the 343 randomized patients, 165 patients who received SC IFX and 174 patients who received IV IFX from the efficacy population were included in the analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in SC IFX compared to IV treated patients at Week 30 using both NRI and LOCF methods in almost all the clinical variables. However, the difference in efficacy outcomes between SC IFX and IV was reduced at Week 54 after the IV group switched to SC. This supports the improved efficacy of SC IFX at Week 30. Some of the key results (EULAR [CRP] responses, LDA rates based on DAS28 [CRP], CDAI, and SDAI) were presented in Figure 1. Analysis using LOCF and NRI methods yielded consistent results across most of the efficacy outcomes.

Figure 1.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between SC IFX and IV IFX in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

*P<0.05.

P-value for difference in proportion between SC and IV treatment group was obtained by asymptotic Wald test.

Low disease activity based on DAS28 (CRP) (< 3.2), CDAI (eatment group AI (≤ 11.0).

Conclusion

Statistical analyses using conservative missing imputation methods showed significantly greater improvements in clinical outcomes with SC IFX compared to IV at Week 30 in patients with RA. Between-group differences was reduced at Week 54, suggesting improved responses after switching from IV to SC.

References

[1]Remsima summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/remsima-epar-product-information_en.pdf. Published 2021. Accessed 10 January 2022.

[2]Westhovens R, Wiland P, Zawadzki M, et al. Efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous CT-P13 in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized phase I/III trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;60(5):2277-2287.

[3]Combe B, Allanore Y, Alten R, et al. Comparative efficacy of subcutaneous (CT-P13) and intravenous infliximab in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-regression of individual patient data from two randomised trials. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021;23(1):119.

Disclosure of Interests

Arnaud Constantin Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, MSD, UCB, Roche,Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Christopher John Edwards Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: Celltrion, Pfizer, Abbvie, Joao Eurico Fonseca Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Ache, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Florenzo Iannone Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, MSD, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, MSD, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS, MSD, Edward Keystone Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Celltrion, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Myriad Autoimmune, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Consultant of: Celltrion, Taeksang Kwon Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Seungmin Kim Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Sangwook Yoon Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Dong-Hyeon Kim Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Gahee Park Employee of: Celltrion Inc., DaeHyun Yoo Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Celltrion Healthcare

AB1060 LONG-TERM DISABILITY SECONDARY TO CRPS-1. RETROSPECTIVE MONOCENTRIC STUDY ON 106 CASES

Background

Complex regional pain syndrome type-1 (CRPS-1) is a severely disabling pain syndrome characterized by sensory and vasomotor disturbance, swelling, and functional impairment. Persistence of signs and symptoms has been observed in up to 64% of cases until 5.8 yrs after the onset of manifestations. Long-term disability, such as irreversible functional limitation, has been reported in up to 28% of cases with severe consequences on workability. No scores are validated to evaluate residual disability. Bisphosphonates have the best efficacy profile, compared with other therapeutic approaches, but data on long-term effectiveness are lacking.

Objectives

To retrospectively evaluate long-term residual disability in patients with CRPS-1 of hand or foot after treatment with IV Neridronate (IVNer). To identify predictors of residual disability. To quantify disease outcomes, such as patient’s subjective perception and residual pain. To assess long-term safety profile.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data of patients affected by CRPS-1, treated with IVNer, referred to a tertiary Rheumatology Centre between Feb 2013 and Dec 2020. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill Questionnaire (McGQ) were used for pain assessment. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society’s (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale for hand and foot involvement, respectively, were administered to explore disability through a phone survey. This kind of investigation was preferred for Covid pandemic.

Results

106 patients with definite diagnosis of CRPS-1 were included, mean age±standard deviation 55.6±13 yrs, 67% females, mean follow up duration 56.3 months (range 14-94), 46.2% with hand involvement. The mean VAS score before treatment onset was 55.8±23.4mm, while the McGQ was 12.9±6.7 in the sensory domain, 4.9±3.3 in the affective domain and 17.8±9.2 on the total score.

Based on the patient’s subjective perception and the proposed semi-quantitative scale, 77.4% described themselves as fully recovered (FR), 15% partially recovered (PR), and 7.6% with persistent disease (PD). Comparison between baseline and follow-up VAS shows a significant reduction (55.8±23.4 vs 15.1±26.4, p<0.00001).

Pain assessment by McGQ showed a significant improvement in global score (baseline vs follow-up 17.8±9.2 vs 3.9±7.8, p<0.00001), sensory (12.9±6.7 vs 2.7±5.7, p<0.00001) and affective (4.9±3.3 vs 1.2±2.3, p<0.00001) domains.

According to DASH score, 79.2% of the patients were FR, 3.8% had some difficulties, but with overall preserved use of the upper limb, and 17.0% had permanent functional disability.

According to AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scale 76.4% of patients were FR, 16.0% had partial recovery, and 7.6% had severe functional impairment.

Percentages of DASH and AOFAS scores showed a complete accordance with patients’ subjective perception (Figure 1a and b).

The only predictor of long-term functional impairment for CRPS-1 in the hand was a delayed treatment compared to symptoms onset (p=0.02). No predictors were found for foot localization.

No patients reported the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atraumatic fractures/atypical fracture features.

Figure 1.

Conclusion

IVNer maintained a good long-term effectiveness and safety profile in the treatment of CRPS-1. The effectiveness of IVNer is maintained on both pain symptoms and function, in terms of reductions in the VAS, McGQ and in hand and foot disability scores.

References

[1]Varenna M et al. Rheumatology 2013

[2]Padua R. et al. J Hand Surg. Br. Eur. 2003

[3]Leigheb M et al. Acta Biomed. Atenei Parm. 2016

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0512 ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY SEROSTATUS DETERMINES 2-YEAR RETENTION OF IV AND SC ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH RA IN A REAL-WORLD SETTING

Background

A treat-to-target approach for RA management is recommended.1,2 However, up to half of patients discontinue DMARD treatment within 18 months.2 Predictive biomarkers, such as anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and RF, may be useful to stratify patients to the most appropriate treatment. ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice; NCT02109666) and ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) were 2-year, international, observational, prospective, multicenter studies of IV and SC abatacept, respectively, for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.3,4 Higher retention has been previously reported in patients with double ACPA/RF seropositive RA compared with double ACPA/RF seronegative RA.3,4

Objectives

To assess the independent effect of ACPA or RF single seropositivity on abatacept retention in patients with RA receiving abatacept in a post hoc analysis of ACTION and ASCORE.

Methods

This post hoc analysis included patients aged ≥ 18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who initiated IV (body weight–adjusted dosing) or SC (125 mg once weekly) abatacept.3,4 Patients were stratified by baseline ACPA/RF status: ACPA+/RF− (ACPA+ only), ACPA/RF double positive (+/+), ACPA−/RF+ (RF+ only), and ACPA/RF double negative (−/−). Abatacept retention rate at 2 years was estimated by Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis.

Results

Patients with ACPA/RF serostatus data from the ACTION and ASCORE studies (N = 1679 and N = 1748, respectively) were evaluated. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were similar across studies and serostatus groups (Table 1). In patients with ACPA+ only RA, abatacept retention rates were similar to the +/+ group and greater than the RF+ only and −/− groups (Figure 1). In ASCORE (Figure 1A), retention rates were significantly higher in ACPA+ only and +/+ groups when compared with the −/− group. In contrast, retention rates for patients with RF+ only RA were not significantly different vs −/− patients. Results were similar in ACTION, although the higher retention in the ACPA+ group did not reach statistical significance (Figure 1B).

Table 1.

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics by ACPA/RF status for the ASCORE and ACTION studies

ASCORE+/+RF+ onlyACPA+ only−/−(n = 1079)(n = 142)(n = 184)(n = 343)Age, years57.1 (12.8)58.2 (11.8)57.4 (13.5)57.8 (13.9)DAS28 (CRP)4.7 (1.2)4.6 (1.1)4.4 (1.0)4.8 (1.2)CDAI26.6 (12.5)25.8 (12.0)23.6 (10.9)28.2 (13.2)SDAI28.1 (13.0)27.2 (12.4)24.4 (10.8)29.7 (13.9)ACTION+/+RF+ onlyACPA+ only−/−(n = 1028)(n = 161)(n = 98)(n = 392)Age, years58.2 (12.0)58.4 (13.4)58.5 (14.0)57.0 (13.3)DAS28 (CRP)4.9 (1.1)5.0 (1.1)4.9 (1.0)5.0 (1.1)CDAI28.7 (12.2)29.2 (12.4)28.7 (11.5)30.1 (12.9)SDAI30.4 (13.1)31.2 (13.4)29.8 (11.5)31.7 (13.4)

Data are mean (SD). Patients with missing data for baseline ACPA/RF status are excluded.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of the real-world ACTION and ASCORE studies, ACPA positivity was associated with an increased likelihood of retention over 2 years. Patients with ACPA+ only RA were equally as likely to be retained on abatacept as patients with ACPA/RF double positivity. In contrast, patients with RF+ only RA were less likely to be retained on abatacept over 2 years. These findings suggest that ACPA positivity played a more important role than RF positivity in abatacept retention. The higher retention seen in patients with ACPA+ only vs RF+ only disease demonstrates the key role of ACPA in RA and supports the importance of precision medicine in treating patients.

References

[1]Fraenkel L, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021;73:924–39.

[2]Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–99.

[3]Alten R, et al. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38:1413–24.

[4]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80(suppl 1):OP0180.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Fiona Boswell, PhD, of Caudex, and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Study management provided by Syneos (CRO).

Disclosure of Interests

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, UCB, Peter Peichl Speakers bureau: GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, Sanofi; IMIDomics (executive role), Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: Amgen, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Bettina Bannert Speakers bureau: Novartis Pharma Schweiz AG, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Signifience, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb.

AB0224 JAK-INHIBITORS ATTAIN A RAPID AND PERSISTENT EFFECTIVENESS ON SEVERAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN LONG-STANDING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are efficacious drugs for the control of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The effect on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown in randomized clinical trials, but is still largely unknown in real-life scenarios.

Objectives

To assess the time to onset and magnitude of improvement across a number of different PROs in patients with RA treated with JAKi.

Methods

Patients were selected from centres involved in the LORHEN Registry. Patients with a diagnosis of RA initiating a JAKi (Baricitinib or Tofacitinib) between May 2019 and February 2020 were clinically assessed at baseline, 8 weeks and 16 weeks with DAS28 and SDAI. PROs were collected at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 16 weeks from JAKi initiation. The PROs assessed at each timepoint were: Patient Global Assessment (PGA), General Health (GH), 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)-pain, VAS-fatigue, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), The Clinical Arthritis Activity (PRO-CLARA) questionnaire.

Results

Thirty-eight patients (female 76%, mean age 57±15) were enrolled for a total of 152 visits for PROs assessments. Patients had received a median of 2 (IQR 1;3) previous conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD) and a median of 2 (0;3) biological DMARDs. Mean disease duration at time of JAKi initiation was 10±9.5 years. JAKi was prescribed as combination therapy with a csDMARD in 20 (53%), concomitant glucocorticoids (GC) in 28 (73%) patients, at a mean dose of 6±2 mg/day. Twenty-one (55) patients were on regular analgesics. DAS28-ESR reduced from 4.5±0.9 at baseline to 2.6±0.9 at 8 weeks (p<0.001). DAS28-ESR remained stable between 8 and 16 weeks (mean values 2.3±0.1; p=0.17). Similarly, DAS28-CRP reduced from 4.1±0.8 to 2.1±0.6 at 8 weeks (p<0.0001). Between 8 and 16 weeks there was a further significant reduction of DAS28-CRP under the effect of JAKi treatment to a mean value of 1.4±0.5 (p<0.0001). SDAI reduced over the period of observation from 19±8 to 6±5 at 8 weeks (p<0.0001), and to 4±3 at 16 weeks (0.03). By week 8 the intake of concomitant GC reduced to 28% of patients (p=0.0001), and of analgesics to 2% of patients (p<0.0001).

By two weeks, all PROs had a significant reduction compared to baseline (Figure 1). For PGA, VAS-pain, VAS-fatigue a further significant reduction was observed by week 4 to then stabilize between week 8 and 16. GH and HAQ had a significant reduction by week 2 and remained stable thereafter. All PROs were significantly lower during all time-points compared to baseline. The PRO-CLARA Road score to assess physical function significantly improved starting from week 2 from a score of 4±2 to 2±2 at the end of follow-up. The PRO-CLARA self-administered tender joint count was stable at week 2 (mean score 4±2) but recorded an improvement from week 4 onwards (p<0.03).

Figure 1.

Improvement of patient-reported outcomes over the period of observation

Conclusion

Treatment with JAKi ensures a very rapid and persistent improvement of several PROs, including pain, fatigue and physical function, as early as 2 weeks treatment even in patients with long-standing RA treated with several lines of previous DMARDs.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0676 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB IN PATIENTS AGED ≥75 YEARS: A POST HOC SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF THE FINCH 4 LONG-TERM EXTENSION (LTE) STUDY

Background

Filgotinib (FIL) is a Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1. The recommended dose for adults with RA is 200 mg (FIL200); however, a starting dose of 100 mg (FIL100) is recommended for those aged ≥75 years (y) in view of limited clinical experience1. An important consideration is the generally higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) in the elderly due to comorbidities.

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of FIL100 and FIL200 in patients with RA aged ≥75 y.

Methods

FINCH 4 (NCT03025308) is an ongoing phase 3 open-label LTE study of FIL100 and FIL200 for RA. Eligible patients completed a prior phase 3 randomized double-blind study of FIL lasting 52 weeks (FINCH 1 or 3) or 24 weeks (FINCH 2). In this post hoc analysis, safety and efficacy were assessed in patients aged <75 and ≥75 y in FINCH 4. Efficacy measures were American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responses, clinical disease activity index (CDAI) ≤10/≤2.8, disease activity score (DAS)28 <2.6/≤3.2 and health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI).

Results

At LTE Week 48, 52% and 44% of patients aged <75 and ≥75 y, respectively, were on methotrexate. In both age groups, response rates for key efficacy measures at LTE Week 48 were generally maintained from LTE baseline (Figure 1) in patients with and without prior FIL exposure in FINCH 1–3, and were numerically higher with FIL200 vs FIL100. Mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI with FIL200 and FIL100 was 0.61 and 0.74 in those aged <75 y and 1.04 and 0.98 in those aged ≥75 y, respectively.

Figure 1.

The exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of serious AEs and AEs of special interest (AESI) was generally higher in patients aged ≥75 y than <75 y. In those aged ≥75 y, the EAIR of AEs leading to premature study discontinuation, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and serious TEAEs was higher with FIL200 vs FIL100; the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thrombotic and embolic events, serious infections, herpes zoster and malignancies was low in both dose groups (Table 1). Three patients died, all from the FIL200 group; each had a medical history relevant to the cause of death.

Table 1.

Exposure-adjusted incidence rate (95% CI) of AEs at Week 48 as events per 100 years of exposure

FIL200FIL100Age, years<75≥75<75≥75n=1469n=61n=1136n=63(PYE 2253.9)(PYE 92.2)(PYE 1753.7)(PYE 98.4)With prior FIL exposure, n (%)1142 (77.7)53 (86.9)830 (73.1)33 (52.4)TEAE48.3 (45.5, 51.3)55.3 (42.1, 72.8)48.7 (45.5, 52.1)42.7 (31.6, 57.8)Serious TEAE6.8 (5.8, 8.0)17.4 (10.6, 28.3)7.4 (6.2, 8.7)14.2 (8.4, 24.0)AE leading to premature study discontinuation2.9 (2.3, 3.7)9.8 (5.1, 18.8)3.9 (3.1, 5.0)4.1 (1.5, 10.8)AE leading to death0.5 (0.3, 0.9)3.3 (0.7, 9.5)*0.3 (0.2, 0.8)0.0 (0.0, 3.8)Infections28.8 (26.6, 31.1)29.3 (20.1, 42.7)27.4 (25.0, 29.9)26.4 (18.0, 38.8)Serious infections1.6 (1.2, 2.2)2.2 (0.5, 8.7)1.7 (1.1, 2.4)3.1 (1.0, 9.5)Herpes zoster1.6 (1.2, 2.3)2.2 (0.5, 8.7)1.0 (0.6, 1.6)3.1 (1.0, 9.5)Adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event0.4 (0.2, 0.7)2.2 (0.5, 8.7)0.5 (0.2, 0.9)1.0 (0.1, 7.2)Venous thrombotic and embolic events0.3 (0.1, 0.6)2.2 (0.5, 8.7)0.2 (0.1, 0.5)1.0 (0.1, 7.2)Malignancy excluding NMSC0.7 (0.4, 1.2)4.3 (1.6, 11.6)0.7 (0.4, 1.2)3.1 (1.0, 9.5)NMSC0.4 (0.2, 0.8)1.1 (0.0, 6.0)0.2 (0.1, 0.6)0.0 (0.0, 3.8)

*Cause of death: esophageal carcinoma; cardiovascular; unknown. FIL(100/200), filgotinib (100/200 mg); NMSC, nonmelanoma skin cancer; PYE, patient years of exposure; (TE)AE, (treatment-emergent) adverse event

Conclusion

In the ≥75 y group, response rates for key efficacy measures remained stable to Week 48 and were generally higher with FIL200 vs FIL100. The incidence of serious AEs and AESI was higher in those aged ≥75 than <75 y. Patient numbers/exposure time may have been insufficient to show potential between-group differences in safety/efficacy outcomes.

References

[1]Filgotinib SmPC

Acknowledgements

The FINCH studies were funded by Gilead Sciences (Foster City, CA, United States). We thank the physicians and patients who participated in the studies. Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) and funded by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium).

Disclosure of Interests

Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi, and Sanofi, Rene Westhovens Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: Celltrion, Galapagos, and Gilead, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, and Roche-Chugai, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS and Pfizer, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Gilead and Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB, José A Gómez-Puerta Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Consultant of: GSK, Roche, and Sanofi, Paul Van Hoek Employee of: Galapagos, Vijay Rajendran Employee of: Galapagos, Pieter-Jan Stiers Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Thijs Hendrikx Employee of: Galapagos, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda

POS0254 IMMUNE RESPONSE TO SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES: THE MAINSTREAM STUDY

Background

Rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) are pathological conditions characterized by an impaired immunological system that is determinant both in the pathogenesis and in the inadequate response to infections. The use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), which include conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic and targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs, contribute to compromise immunological reactivity.

Objectives

To analyze the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) receiving treatment with DMARDs and to investigate the effect of the different classes of drugs on humoral and cellular response.

Methods

Patients were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies to nucleoprotein (N) and receptor-binding domain (RBD) through ELISA and neutralization assays. Then, we performed a flow cytometry analysis of monocytes, NK cells, B and T lymphocytes from PBMCs of serologically positive patients. We also included a cohort of non-RMD individuals recovered from COVID-19 as a reference group of non-immunosuppressed subjects. A first recruitment occurred in May-June 2020 (T1) and a second recruitment, 3-4 months after (T2), allowed to evaluate the persistence of the antibody response over time and to investigate the cellular immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in RMD patients having resolved the infection.

Results

During T1, 358 patients with RA (n=200) or SpA (n=158) were recruited. Mean age was 52.8, 64% were female. All patients were treated with DMARDs, 299 with b/tsDMARDs and 59 received csDMARDs alone. One third was also receiving corticosteroids (CS). At T2, 36 subjects were recruited. We found a seroprevalence rate of 18.4%, which did not significantly differ between RA and SpA groups, and between patients treated with b/ts-DMARD or csDMARDs, either alone or in combination with CS (Table 1). Antibody levels of RMD patients were lower than non-RMD individuals (Figure 1), with CTLA4-Ig-treated patients having the lowest IgG levels. This difference was less marked in symptomatic RMD patients. 72% of seropositive patients elicited neutralizing sera. Despite an overall decrease in anti-RBD and anti-N titers, more than two-third of patients maintained antibodies titers above positivity threshold at T2. Concerning cellular response, we found that CD8+ T-cells frequency was overall comparable between RMD and non-RMD convalescents, and did not differ in b- or cs-DMARD treated ones. Conversely, CD4+ T-cell frequencies were significantly lower in RMD patients, especially those treated with anti-IL6R and CTLA4-Ig. B-cell subpopulations (class-switched, memory, and IgG+ memory B-cells) had sustained frequencies in anti-TNFα treated patients, while they had a trend of reduction in patients treated with anti-IL6R and CTLA4-Ig.

Table 1.

Anti-RBD seroprevalence

TotalSeropositive, n(%)IgM (n)(%)IgG (n)(%)IgA (n)(%)COVID19 symptomatic772532.51924.71722.11722.1COVID19 asymptomatic2814114.6*238.2*134.6 *269.3*RA20036192311.520102713.5SpA15830191912106.31610.1b/ts-DMARD2995518.43511.72483612cs-DMARD591118.6711.9610.2711.9csDMARD+b/tsDMARD1122623.287.187.198a-TNFa1733721.42514.5169.12112.1a-IL-6R35822.9514.3617.1822.9CTLA4-Ig42511.937.112.447.1

*P value < 0,005

Figure 1.

Magnitude of the anti-RBD and anti-N antibody response

Conclusion

Our data provide a comprehensive picture of the humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in RMD patients. We showed that DMARDs treatments did not alter a successful antibody response to the virus and did not hamper the antibody neutralizing ability. However, the magnitude of antibody response was slightly reduced compared to non-RMD individuals, especially in patients receiving CTLA4-Ig. We did not observe marked differences in the B- and T-cell populations between RMD patients compared to non-RMD individuals. However, in patients receiving anti-TNFα we found a higher relative abundance of effector adaptive population compared to other bDMARDs.

Acknowledgements

The project was co-financed by Lombardy 2014-2020 Operational Program under the European Regional Development Fund.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0430 SYNOVIAL FLUID-DERIVED EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND OSTEOARTHRITIS MODULATE DIFFERENT HIPPOCAMPAL SYNAPTIC ACTIVITIES

Background

Accumulating evidence suggests that poor mental health is one of the most common comorbidities of both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) [1]. Even if underpinning RA and OA are different genetic, structural, mechanical, and immunologic pathways involved in their pathogenesis, poor mental health, and joint involvement are intertwined and negatively affect their mutual course by contributing to global disability. Thus, new insights into mechanisms that link these disorders are needed to identify new actionable biomarkers to drive more personalized therapeutic strategies. Amidst potential mediators, extracellular vesicles (EVs) play a central role in terms of communication between cells, they cross the blood-brain barrier and based on their cargos can affect the recipient cell function [2].

Objectives

To isolate EVs from synovial fluid (SF) in RA and OA patients and to evaluate if and how these EVs can alter in vitro synaptic transmission of murine hippocampal neurons.

Methods

In this cross-sectional pilot study, consecutive adult RA and primary OA who were referred to the Rheumatology Unit for aspiration of joint effusion were enrolled. Demographic and clinical variables and mental health rating scales were collected. Discarded SF were collected and EVs were isolated and analyzed by Malvern NanoSight NS300 system to obtain information on their number and size. Afterwards, DIV14 cultured wild-type hippocampal neurons were exposed for two hours to OA- and RA-EVs at low and high concentration EVs. Thus, miniature excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic currents (mEPSCs and mIPSCs), which reflects glutamatergic and GABA-ergic activity respectively, were examined by exploiting patch-clamp recordings in the whole-cell configuration. Frequency and amplitude were analyzed to evaluate potential changes at the presynaptic or postsynaptic compartment. Mann Whitney test was used to compare two different samples.

Results

Eight RA patients (7 female, mean age 57 yrs), and 5 primary OA (4 female, mean age 60 yrs) were recruited for SF aspiration. The mean VAS pain was 7.25 in RA and 6.5 in OA. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in mean rating scale scores although patients affected by RA had more severe depressive symptoms (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale -MADRS- means scores: 16.57) with respect OA group (MADRS mean scores: 10). The Nanoparticle tracking analysis showed that RA-EVs were significantly more in number compared to OA-EVs (Figure 1 A), mimicking more inflammation, while no significant difference in size was observed. Analysis of miniature events revealed the occurrence of two different changes. High concentration of OA-EVs has led to an increased amplitude of excitatory events, meaning an increased susceptibility of neurons to glutamate in the post-synaptic compartment (Figure 1 B). Whereas low concentration of RA-EVs has led to a decreased frequency of inhibitory events, which reflects a reduced function of GABA-ergic synapse in the pre-synaptic compartment (Figure 1 C).

Figure 1.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that SF-derived EVs from OA and RA patients lead to different specific changes of neurotransmission, with different concentration needed to alter neuronal spontaneous activity in post-synaptic and pre-synaptic compartment, respectively. EVs may provide insight into the pathogenesis of joint-brain communication in RA and OA, unraveling specific pathways thus allowing targeted therapies for neuropsychiatric involvement.

References

[1]Lancet 2017;390(10100): 1211–1259

[2]FASEB Bioadv 2021;3(9):665-675

Disclosure of Interests

Lavinia A. Coletto: None declared, Francesca Ingegnoli: None declared, Clara Cambria: None declared, Laura Cantone: None declared, Orazio De Lucia: None declared, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, MSD, UCB, Roche,Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Valentina Bollati: None declared, Massimiliano Buoli: None declared, Flavia Antonucci: None declared.

POS0518 EFFECT OF FILGOTINIB (FIL) ON BODY WEIGHT (BW) AND BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) AND EFFECT OF BASELINE BMI ON THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FIL IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA)

Background

FIL is a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 preferential inhibitor approved for the treatment (tx) of moderate to severe RA. Weight gain has been reported with other JAK inhibitors1–3; it is important to describe the effect of FIL on BW/BMI for physicians to correctly inform and appropriately treat patients.

Objectives

Our primary aim was to assess the effect of FIL on BW/BMI using data from the FINCH 1–3 studies. Secondary aims were to assess the efficacy and safety of FIL according to baseline BMI.

Methods

FINCH 1–3 (NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728) were phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active/placebo (PBO)-controlled studies of FIL 100/200 mg (FIL100/FIL200) ± methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to MTX (FINCH 1) or biologic DMARD (FINCH 2), or were MTX naïve (FINCH 3). We assessed changes from baseline (CFB) in BW and BMI by tx group and baseline BMI, and the efficacy and safety of FIL by baseline BMI (<25, 25–<30 or ≥30 kg/m2). Efficacy measures included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 response, Disease Activity Score 28 with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI). Safety data were from 7 RA clinical trials (FINCH 1–4, DARWIN 1–3)4.

Results

In FINCH 1–3, baseline disease characteristics such as HAQ-DI, DAS28-CRP and clinical disease activity index were similar across BMI subgroups for each tx group. There were no clinically relevant CFB in median BW or BMI in any tx group or differences between tx groups. Mean CFB in BMI (kg/m2) were 0.4 with FIL200 and FIL100 and 0.3 with adalimumab (ADA) at Week 52 in FINCH 1; 0.2, 0.6 and −0.1 with FIL200, FIL100 and PBO, respectively, at Week 24 in FINCH 2; and 0.5, 0.6, 1.1 and 0.3 with FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX, FIL200 and MTX, respectively, at Week 52 in FINCH 3.

CFB in BMI did not appear dependent on baseline BMI. FIL200±MTX was efficacious vs controls regardless of baseline BMI for most measures at each timepoint. In FINCH 1, in the <25, 25–<30 and ≥30 kg/m2 BMI subgroups, DAS28-CRP <2.6 was achieved by 38%, 29% and 33% of the FIL200 group, 29%, 19% and 21% of the ADA group, and 7%, 10% and 11% of the PBO group at Week 12, respectively. Figure 1 shows ACR20 responders by baseline BMI in FINCH 1–3. Integrated safety data across baseline BMI subgroups are summarised in Table 1. VTE rate was numerically higher with FIL200 in the ≥30 than 25–<30 or <25 kg/m2 BMI subgroups; serious infection rate was numerically higher with FIL100 in the <25 mg/m2 subgroup vs other BMI subgroups.

Table 1.

Exposure-adjusted incidence rate (95% CI) of AEs per 100 PYE by baseline BMI

FIL dose (mg)BMI (kg/m2)<2525–<30≥30PYE 3062.8PYE 2640.1PYE 2382.2TEAEs20034.5 (32.0, 37.1)35.7 (33.0, 38.6)36.6 (33.7, 39.8)10044.3 (40.4, 48.6)43.0 (38.9, 47.5)45.3 (41.1, 50.0)Serious TEAEs2005.3 (4.4, 6.4)5.8 (4.8, 7.1)7.1 (5.8, 8.5)1007.6 (6.0, 9.4)6.5 (5.0, 8.4)8.1 (6.4, 10.2)Deaths2000.3 (0.2, 0.7)0.5 (0.3, 1.0)0.5 (0.2, 1.0)1000.4 (0.1, 1.0)0.3 (0.1, 1.0)0.2 (0.1, 0.9)Venous thrombotic and embolic events2000.1 (0.0, 0.4)0.1 (0.0, 0.5)0.5 (0.2, 1.0)1000.1 (0.0, 0.7)0.1 (0.0, 0.8)0.2 (0.1, 0.9)Major adverse cardiovascular events2000.3 (0.2, 0.7)0.3 (0.1, 0.7)0.5 (0.2, 1.0)1000.6 (0.3, 1.3)0.3 (0.1, 1.0)0.6 (0.2, 1.4)Serious infections2001.1 (0.7, 1.7)1.7 (1.2, 2.5)1.8 (1.2, 2.6)1002.6 (1.8, 3.9)1.2 (0.7, 2.2)2.2 (1.4, 3.4)Herpes zoster2001.6 (1.1, 2.2)1.4 (1.0, 2.1)1.8 (1.2, 2.6)1001.0 (0.5, 1.8)1.2 (0.7, 2.2)1.0 (0.5, 2.0)Malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer2000.5 (0.3, 1.0)0.7 (0.4, 1.3)0.5 (0.3, 1.1)1000.6 (0.3, 1.3)0.4 (0.2, 1.2)0.8 (0.4, 1.7)

BMI, body mass index; FIL, filgotinib; PYE, patient years of exposure; (TE)AE, (treatment-emergent) adverse event

Conclusion

FIL did not substantially affect CFB in BW or BMI. FIL200±MTX was generally more efficacious vs controls regardless of baseline BMI, and the rate of TEAEs was similar across baseline BMI subgroups.

References

[1]Tofacitinib SmPC

[2]Baracitinib SmPC

[3]Upadacitinib SmPC

[4]Winthrop K, et al. ACR 2021. Abstract 1698

Acknowledgements

The FINCH studies were funded by Gilead Sciences (Foster City, CA, United States).

We thank the physicians and patients who participated in the studies.

Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) and funded by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium).

Disclosure of Interests

Alejandro Balsa Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Nordic, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Nordic, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Siegfried Wassenberg Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, Nichi-Iko, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Anne Tournadre Speakers bureau: Fresenius-Kabi and Sanofi, Paid instructor for: Fresenius-Kabi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius-Kabi, Lilly, Novartis, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Hans-Dieter Orzechowski Employee of: Galapagos, Katrien Van Beneden Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Vijay Rajendran Employee of: Galapagos, Udo Lendl Employee of: Galapagos, Pieter-Jan Stiers Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Chris Watson Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Accord, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Accord, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Patrick Verschueren Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, and Roularta, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sidekick Health, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Chair Management of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis at KU Leuven Belgium.

POS0721 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRECONCEPTION COMPLEMENT LEVELS AND USE OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE WITH PREGNANCY OUTCOME IN PATIENTS WITH PRIMARY ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID SYNDROME AND CARRIERS OF ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID ANTIBODIES: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTICENTER STUDY

Background

Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) is a rare autoimmune disease characterized by thrombotic events and/or pregnancy morbidities in the presence of confirmed positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Complement was demonstrated to be involved in aPL-related pregnancy loss in animal models and several groups investigated the significance of complement levels in human disease. C3 and C4 serum levels were assessed in several cohorts of pregnant patients with APS and/or aPL positivity in order to relate complement consumption with adverse pregnancy outcome (APO).

According to some authors, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) can control the activation of the complement system, improve pregnancy outcome and reduce aPL title.

Objectives

This study was designed to verify the effect of HCQ in addition to low dose aspirin (LDA) + low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) treatment in a multicenter cohort of primary APS (PAPS) and aPL carriers pregnant women and the possible correlation with preconception serum C3/C4 levels.

Methods

Medical records of pregnant women with confirmed positivity for aPL antibodies attending twelve referral centers from January 2010 to December 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. We considered as aPL-related APO: spontaneous abortions (<10 weeks of gestation), fetal loss (≥10 weeks of gestation), neonatal death (death of a formed fetus alive at birth in the first 28 days of life), preterm delivery before 37 weeks of gestation, preeclampsia, eclampsia or HELLP syndrome (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet).

Results

We have analyzed 164 singleton PAPS/aPL carrier pregnancies (22 aPL carriers - 13%) in 128 patients: all were treated with combination therapy (LDA+LMWH), and in 30 HCQ was added. 58 pregnancies (43%) had low levels of preconception C3/C4. A triple aPL positivity was observed in 54 pregnancies, 14 of them were treated with combination therapy + HCQ. When considering the whole cohort, the addition of HCQ had not significantly improved the gestational outcome. Further stratification was performed on the basis of complement consumption. In the group of patients with preconception low C3/C4 levels the addition of HCQ had not significantly improved pregnancy outcome. We have lastly evaluated 40 pregnancies with a high-risk profile (triple aPL positivity and complement consumption), in which we have found that HCQ significantly improved gestational outcome (p=0.018, Table 1).

Table 1.

Relationship between APO, therapy during pregnancy and risk profile.

All pregnancies (n=164)Reduced C3/C4 (n=58)Triple aPL+ and reduced C3/C4 (n=40)LDA+LMWH (n, %)LDA+LMWH+HCQ (n, %)pLDA+LMWH (n, %)LDA+LMWH+HCQpLDA+LMWHLDA+LMWH+HCQp(n, %)(n, %)(n, %)APO62 (46%)16 (53%)ns32 (68%)4 (36%)ns23 (77%)3 (30%)0.018No APO72 (54%)14 (47%)15 (32%)7 (64%)7 (23%)7 (70%)Total1343047113010

This observation could not be confirmed in patients with single or double aPL positivity.

Conclusion

The study shows that administering HCQ in addition to combination therapy can improve gestational outcome in aPL/PAPS high-risk patients. This observation confirms that HCQ exerts a beneficial effect on aPL pregnancies by complement inhibition as it was shown in animal models. In addition, our results provide the clinicians a useful tool to implement conventional treatment in patients at high risk of pregnancy complication or loss.

References

[1]De Carolis S, et al. Is there any role for the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in refractory obstetrical antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) treatment? Autoimmun Rev 2015;14:760-2.

[2]Mekinian A, et al. The efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for obstetrical outcome in antiphospholipid syndrome: data from a European multicenter retrospective study. Autoimmun Rev 2015;40:498-502.

[3]Mekinian A et al. Obstetrical APS: is there a place for hydroxychloroquine to improve the pregnancy outcome? Autoimmun Rev 2015;14:23-9.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared