Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Janus kinase (JAK) Inhibitors are the latest drug class of disease-modifying medication to emerge for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They are a small molecule-targeted treatment and are the first oral option to compare favourably to existing biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Tofacitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib are the first 3 JAK inhibitors to become commercially available in the field and are the core focus of this review. To date, they have demonstrated comparable efficacy to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates and disease activity (DAS28) scores with similar cost to the benchmark adalimumab. This narrative review article aims to synthesise and distil the key available trial data on JAK inhibitor efficacy and safety, along with their place in the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guidelines for RA. The novel mechanism of action of the JAK/STAT pathway is highlighted along with the potential effects of modulating each pathway. The rapid onset of action, role in attenuation of central pain processing and effect on structural damage and radiographic progression are also all examined in detail. We also explore the latest meta-analyses and comparative performance of each of the 3 available JAKs in an effort to determine which is most efficacious and which has the most favourable safety profile. Post marketing concerns regarding thromboembolism risk and herpes zoster infection are also discussed. Additionally, we review the cost-benefit analyses of the available JAK inhibitors and address some of the pharmacoeconomic considerations for real-world practice in the UK and US by detailing the raw acquisition cost and the value they provide in comparison to the benchmark biologic adalimumab and the anchor DMARD methotrexate.© 2020 Harrington et al.

The Janus family kinases (Jaks), Jak1, Jak2, Jak3, and Tyk2, form one subgroup of the non-receptor protein tyrosine kinases. They are involved in cell growth, survival, development, and differentiation of a variety of cells but are critically important for immune cells and hematopoietic cells. Data from experimental mice and clinical observations have unraveled multiple signaling events mediated by Jaks in innate and adaptive immunity. Deficiency of Jak3 or Tyk2 results in defined clinical disorders, which are also evident in mouse models. A striking phenotype associated with inactivating Jak3 mutations is severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome, whereas mutation of Tyk2 results in another primary immunodeficiency termed autosomal recessive hyperimmunoglobulin E syndrome. By contrast, complete deletion of Jak1 or Jak2 in the mouse are not compatible with life and, unsurprisingly, do not have counterparts in human disease. However, activating mutations of each of the Jaks are found in association with malignant transformation, the most common being gain-of-function mutations of Jak2 in polycythemia vera and other myeloproliferative disorders. Our existing knowledge on Jak signaling pathways and fundamental work on their biochemical structure and intracellular interactions allow us to develop new strategies for controlling autoimmune diseases or malignancies by developing selective Jak inhibitors, which are now coming into clinical use. Despite the fact that Jaks were discovered only a little more than a decade ago, at the time of writing there are 20 clinical trials underway testing the safety and efficacy of Jak inhibitors.

To evaluate the risk of opportunistic infections (OIs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.Phase II, III and long-term extension clinical trial data (April 2013 data-cut) from the tofacitinib RA programme were reviewed. OIs defined a priori included mycobacterial and fungal infections, multidermatomal herpes zoster and other viral infections associated with immunosuppression. For OIs, we calculated crude incidence rates (IRs; per 100 patient-years (95% CI)); for tuberculosis (TB) specifically, we calculated rates stratified by patient enrolment region according to background TB IR (per 100 patient-years): low (≤0.01), medium (>0.01 to ≤0.05) and high (>0.05).We identified 60 OIs among 5671 subjects; all occurred among tofacitinib-treated patients. TB (crude IR 0.21, 95% CI of (0.14 to 0.30)) was the most common OI (n=26); median time between drug start and diagnosis was 64 weeks (range 15-161 weeks). Twenty-one cases (81%) occurred in countries with high background TB IR, and the rate varied with regional background TB IR: low 0.02 (0.003 to 0.15), medium 0.08 (0.03 to 0.21) and high 0.75 (0.49 to 1.15). In Phase III studies, 263 patients diagnosed with latent TB infection were treated with isoniazid and tofacitinib concurrently; none developed TB. For OIs other than TB, 34 events were reported (crude IR 0.25 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.36)).Within the global tofacitinib RA development programme, TB was the most common OI reported but was rare in regions of low and medium TB incidence. Patients who screen positive for latent TB can be treated with isoniazid during tofacitinib therapy.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Final data are presented for the ORAL Sequel long-term extension (LTE) study evaluating the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily (BID) for up to 9.5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Eligible patients had previously completed a phase 1, 2, or 3 qualifying index study of tofacitinib and received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg BID. Stable background therapy, including csDMARDs, was continued; adjustments to tofacitinib or background therapy were permitted at investigators' discretion. Assignment to dose groups (5 mg or 10 mg BID) was based on patients' average total daily dose. The primary objective was to determine the long-term safety and tolerability of tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg BID; the key secondary objective was to evaluate the long-term persistence of efficacy.Between February 5, 2007, and November 30, 2016, 4481 patients were enrolled. Total tofacitinib exposure was 16,291 patient-years. Safety data are reported up to month 114 for all tofacitinib; efficacy data are reported up to month 96 for tofacitinib 5 mg BID and month 72 for 10 mg BID (with low patient numbers limiting interpretation beyond these time points). Overall, 52% of patients discontinued (24% due to adverse events [AEs] and 4% due to insufficient clinical response); the safety profile remained consistent with that observed in prior phase 1, 2, 3, or LTE studies. The incidence rate (IR; number of patients with events per 100 patient-years) for AEs leading to discontinuation was 6.8. For all-cause AEs of special interest, IRs were 3.4 for herpes zoster, 2.4 for serious infections, 0.8 for malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, 0.4 for major adverse cardiovascular events, and 0.3 for all-cause mortality. Clinically meaningful improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA and physical functioning, which were observed in the index studies, were maintained.Tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg BID demonstrated a consistent safety profile (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and sustained efficacy in this open-label LTE study of patients with RA. Safety data are reported up to 9.5 years, and efficacy data up to 8 years, based on adequate patient numbers to support conclusions.NCT00413699, funded by Pfizer Inc (date of trial registration: December 20, 2006).

Baricitinib is an oral, once-daily selective Janus kinase (JAK1/JAK2) inhibitor for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated baricitinib's safety profile through 288 weeks (up to September 1, 2016) with an integrated database [8 phase III/II/Ib trials, 1 longterm extension (LTE)].The "all-bari-RA" group included patients who received any baricitinib dose. Placebo comparison was based on the 6 studies with 4 mg and placebo up to Week 24 ("placebo-4 mg" dataset). Dose response assessment was based on 4 studies with 2 mg and 4 mg including LTE data ("2 mg-4 mg-extended"). The uncommon events description used the non-controlled all-bari-RA.There were 3492 patients who received baricitinib for 6637 total patient-years (PY) of exposure (median 2.1 yrs, maximum 5.5 yrs). No differences in rates of death, adverse events leading to drug discontinuation, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), or serious infections were seen for 4 mg versus placebo or for 4 mg versus 2 mg. Infections including herpes zoster were significantly more frequent for 4 mg versus placebo. Deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were reported with 4 mg but not placebo [all-bari-RA incidence rate (IR) 0.5/100 PY]; the IR did not differ between doses (0.5 vs 0.6/100 PY, 2 mg vs 4 mg, respectively) or compared to published RA rates. All-bari-RA had 6 cases of lymphoma (IR 0.09/100 PY), 3 gastrointestinal perforations (0.05/100 PY), 10 cases of tuberculosis (all in endemic areas; 0.15/100 PY), and 22 all-cause deaths (0.33/100 PY). IR for malignancies (0.8/100 PY) and MACE (0.5/100 PY) were low and did not increase with prolonged exposure.In this integrated analysis of patients with moderate to severe active RA with exposure up to 5.5 years, baricitinib has an acceptable safety profile in the context of demonstrated efficacy. Trial registration numbers: NCT01185353, NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01710358, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359, and NCT01885078 at clinicaltrials.gov.

To assess the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) up to 128 weeks in a phase IIb study (NCT01185353).After a 24-week blinded period, eligible patients entered an initial 52-week open-label extension (OLE); patients receiving 8 mg once daily (QD) continued with that dose and all others received 4 mg QD. Doses could be escalated to 8 mg QD at 28 or 32 weeks at investigator discretion when ≥ 6 tender and ≥ 6 swollen joints were present. Patients completing the first OLE were eligible to enter a second 52-week OLE and receive 4 mg QD regardless of previous dose.In the 4-mg (n = 108) and 8-mg (n = 93) groups, treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) occurred in 63% and 67%, serious AE in 16% and 13%, infections in 35% and 40%, and serious infections in 5% and 3% of patients, respectively. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for AE for all baricitinib groups in the second OLE were similar to or lower than rates observed in the first OLE. No opportunistic infections, tuberculosis cases, or lymphomas were observed through 128 weeks; 1 death occurred during the first OLE. Among all patients in both OLE, the proportions who achieved disease improvement at Week 24 were similar or increased at weeks 76 and 128.In a phase IIb study in RA, the safety and tolerability profile of baricitinib, up to 128 weeks, remained consistent with earlier observations, without unexpected late signals. Clinical improvements seen in the 24-week blinded period were maintained during the OLE.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy, including capacity for inhibition of radiographic progression, and safety of upadacitinib, a JAK1-selective inhibitor, as compared to placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Methods In total, 1,629 RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (2:2:1) to receive upadacitinib (15 mg once daily), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg every other week) while continuing to take a stable background dose of MTX. The primary end points were achievement of an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response and a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) of <2.6 in the upadacitinib group compared to the placebo group at week 12; inhibition of radiographic progression was evaluated at week 26. The study was also designed and powered to test for the noninferiority and superiority of upadacitinib compared to adalimumab, as measured both clinically and functionally. Results At week 12, both primary end points were met in patients receiving upadacitinib compared to those receiving placebo (P <= 0.001). An ACR20 improvement response was achieved by 71% of patients in the upadacitinib group compared to 36% in the placebo group, and a DAS28-CRP score of ACR50 response rate, achievement of a DAS28-CRP score of <= 3.2, change in pain severity score, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index. At week 26, more patients receiving upadacitinib than those receiving placebo or adalimumab achieved low disease activity or remission (P <= 0.001). Radiographic progression was significantly inhibited in patients receiving upadacitinib and was observed in fewer upadacitinib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients (P <= 0.001). Up to week 26, adverse events (AEs), including serious infections, were comparable between the upadacitinib and adalimumab groups. The proportions of patients with serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were highest in the adalimumab group; the proportions of patients with herpes zoster and those with creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were highest in the upadacitinib group. Three malignancies, 5 major adverse cardiovascular events, and 4 deaths were reported among the groups, but none occurred in patients receiving upadacitinib. Six venous thromboembolic events were reported (1 in the placebo group, 2 in the upadacitinib group, and 3 in the adalimumab group). Conclusion Upadacitinib was superior to placebo and adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms, and physical function in RA patients who were receiving background MTX. In addition, radiographic progression was significantly inhibited by upadacitinib as compared to placebo. The overall safety profile of upadacitinib was generally similar to that of adalimumab, except for higher rates of herpes zoster and CPK elevations in patients receiving upadacitinib.

Upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1-selective inhibitor, showed efficacy in combination with stable background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to DMARDs. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib monotherapy after switching from methotrexate versus continuing methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate.SELECT-MONOTHERAPY was conducted at 138 sites in 24 countries. The study enrolled adults (≥18 years) who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable methotrexate were randomly assigned 2:2:1:1 to switch to once-daily monotherapy of of upadacitinib or to continue methotrexate at their existing dose as blinded study drug; starting from week 14, patients assigned to continue methotrexate were switched to 15 mg or 30 mg once-daily upadacitinib per prespecified random assignment at baseline. The primary endpoints in this report are proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in the ACR criteria (ACR20) at week 14, and proportion achieving low disease activity defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) of 3·2 or lower, both with non-responder imputation at week 14. Outcomes were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is active but not recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02706951.Patients were screened between Feb 23, 2016, and May 19, 2017 and 648 were randomly assigned to treatment. 598 (92%) completed week 14. At week 14, an ACR20 response was achieved by 89 (41%) of 216 patients (95% CI 35-48) in the continued methotrexate group, 147 (68%) of 217 patients (62-74) receiving upadacitinib 15 mg, and 153 (71%) of 215 patients (65-77) receiving upadacitinib 30 mg (p<0·0001 for both doses vs continued methotrexate). DAS28(CRP) 3·2 or lower was met by 42 (19%) of 216 (95% CI 14-25) in the continued methotrexate group, 97 (45%) of 217 (38-51) receiving upadacitinib 15 mg, and 114 (53%) of 215 (46-60) receiving upadacitinib 30 mg (p<0·0001 for both doses vs continued methotrexate). Adverse events were reported in 102 patients (47%) on continued methotrexate, 103 (47%) on upadacitinib 15 mg, and 105 (49%) on upadacitinib 30 mg. Herpes zoster was reported by one (<1%) patient on continued methotrexate, three (1%) on upadacitinib 15 mg, and six (3%) on upadacitinib 30 mg. Three malignancies (one [<1%] on continued methotrexate, two [1%] on upadacitinib 15 mg), three adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (one [<1%] on upadacitinib 15 mg, two [<1%] on upadacitinib 30 mg), one adjudicated pulmonary embolism (<1%; upadacitinib 15 mg), and one death (<1%; upadacitinib 15 mg, haemorrhagic stroke [ruptured aneurysm]) were reported in the study.Upadacitinib monotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in clinical and functional outcomes versus continuing methotrexate in this methotrexate inadequate-responder population. Safety observations were similar to those in previous upadacitinib rheumatoid arthritis studies.AbbVie Inc, USA.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy need treatment options.To evaluate the effects of filgotinib vs placebo on the signs and symptoms of RA in a treatment-refractory population.A 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial conducted from July 2016 to June 2018 at 114 sites internationally, randomizing 449 adult patients (and treating 448) with moderately to severely active RA and inadequate response/intolerance to 1 or more prior bDMARDs.Filgotinib, 200 mg (n = 148); filgotinib, 100 mg (n = 153); or placebo (n = 148) once daily; patients continued concomitant stable conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs).The primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary outcomes included week 12 assessments of low disease activity (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] ≤3.2) and change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores, as well as week 24 assessment of remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and adverse events.Among 448 patients who were treated (mean [SD] age, 56 [12] years; 360 women [80.4%]; mean [SD] DAS28-CRP score, 5.9 [0.96]; 105 [23.4%] with ≥3 prior bDMARDs), 381 (85%) completed the study. At week 12, more patients receiving filgotinib, 200 mg (66.0%) or 100 mg (57.5%), achieved ACR20 response (placebo, 31.1%; difference vs placebo: 34.9% [95% CI, 23.5%-46.3%] and 26.4% [95% CI, 15.0%-37.9%], respectively; both P < .001), including among patients with prior exposure to 3 or more bDMARDs (70.3%, 58.8%, and 17.6%, respectively; difference vs placebo: 52.6% [95% CI, 30.3%-75.0%] for filgotinib, 200 mg, and 41.2% [95% CI, 17.3%-65.0%] for filgotinib, 100 mg; both P < .001). The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (10.2%) for filgotinib, 200 mg; headache, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory infection (5.9% each) for filgotinib, 100 mg; and RA (6.1%) for placebo. Four uncomplicated herpes zoster cases and 1 retinal vein occlusion were reported with filgotinib; there were no opportunistic infections, active tuberculosis, malignancies, gastrointestinal perforations, or deaths.Among patients with active RA who had an inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or more bDMARDs, filgotinib, 100 mg daily or 200 mg daily, compared with placebo resulted in a significantly greater proportion achieving a clinical response at week 12. However, further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02873936.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of filgotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and previous inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).In this 24-week phase IIb study, patients with moderately to severely active RA were randomised (1:1:1:1) to receive 50, 100 or 200 mg filgotinib once daily, or placebo, after a ≥4-week washout from MTX. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response at week 12.Overall, 283 patients were randomised and treated. At week 12, significantly more patients receiving filgotinib at any dose achieved ACR20 responses versus placebo (≥65% vs 29%, p<0.001). For other key end points at week 12 (ACR50, ACR70, ACR-N, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints and C reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) significant differences from baseline in favour of filgotinib 100 and 200 mg versus placebo were seen; responses were maintained or improved through week 24. Rapid onset of action was observed for most efficacy end points. Dose-dependent increases in haemoglobin were observed. The percentage of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) was similar in the placebo and filgotinib groups (∼40%). Eight patients on filgotinib and one on placebo had a serious TEAE, and four patients, all of whom received filgotinib, experienced a serious infection. No tuberculosis or opportunistic infections were reported.Over 24 weeks, filgotinib as monotherapy was efficacious in treating the signs and symptoms of active RA, with a rapid onset of action. Filgotinib was generally well tolerated.NCT01894516.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses and regimens of filgotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as add-on treatment to methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to MTX.In this 24-week phase IIb study, patients with moderate-to-severe active RA receiving a stable dose of MTX were randomised (1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive placebo or 50, 100 or 200 mg filgotinib, administered once daily or twice daily. Primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving a week 12 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response.Overall, 594 patients were randomised and treated. At week 12, significantly more patients receiving filgotinib 100 mg once daily or 200 mg daily (both regimens) achieved an ACR20 response versus placebo. For other key end points at week 12 (ACR50, ACR-N, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints and C reactive protein value, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index), differences in favour of 100 or 200 mg filgotinib daily were seen versus placebo; responses were maintained or improved through to week 24. Rapid onset of action and dose-dependent responses were observed for most efficacy end points and were associated with an increased haemoglobin concentration. No significant differences between once-daily and twice-daily regimens were seen. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in placebo and filgotinib groups. Serious infections occurred in one and five patients in the placebo and filgotinib groups, respectively. No tuberculosis or opportunistic infections were reported.Filgotinib as add-on to MTX improved the signs and symptoms of active RA over 24 weeks and was associated with a rapid onset of action. Filgotinib was generally well tolerated.NCT01888874.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Immunity to Mycobacterium tuberculosis is dependent upon the generation of a protective gamma interferon (IFN-gamma)-producing T-cell response. Recent studies have suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) is required for the induction of a protective T-cell response and that IL-4 may suppress the induction of IFN-gamma. To evaluate the role of the cytokines IL-6 and IL-4 in the generation of pulmonary immunity to M. tuberculosis, IL-6 and IL-4 knockout mice were infected with M. tuberculosis via aerosol. The absence of IL-6 led to an early increase in bacterial load with a concurrent delay in the induction of IFN-gamma. However, mice were able to contain and control bacterial growth and developed a protective memory response to secondary infection. This demonstrates that while IL-6 is involved in stimulating early IFN-gamma production, it is not essential for the development of protective immunity against M. tuberculosis. In contrast, while the absence of IL-4 resulted in increased IFN-gamma production, this had no significant effect upon bacterial growth.

This analysis set out to estimate the risk of opportunistic infection (OI) among patients with RA by biologic class.The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis is a prospective observational cohort study established to evaluate safety of biologic therapies. The population included adults commencing biologic therapy for RA. The primary outcome was any serious OI excluding tuberculosis (TB). Event rates were compared across biologic classes using Cox proportional hazards with adjustment for potential confounders identified a priori. Analysis of the incidence of TB was performed separately.In total, 19 282 patients with 106 347 years of follow-up were studied; 142 non-TB OI were identified at a rate of 134 cases/100 000 patient years (pyrs). The overall incidence of OI was not significantly different between the different drug classes; however, the rate of Pneumocystis infection was significantly higher with rituximab than with anti-TNF therapy (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.2, 95% CI: 1.4, 7.5). The rate of TB fell dramatically over the study period (783 cases/100 000 pyrs in 2002 to 38 cases/100 000 pyrs in 2015). The incidence of TB was significantly lower among rituximab users than anti-TNF users, with 12 cases/100 000 pyrs compared with 65 cases/100 000 pyrs.The overall rate of OI was not significantly different between drug classes; however, a subtle difference in the pattern of OI was seen between the cohorts. Patient factors such as age, gender and comorbidity were the most important predictors of OI.

Sirukumab, a human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the interleukin-6 cytokine with high affinity, is under development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sirukumab for rheumatoid arthritis in a phase 3 study (SIRROUND-T).We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study at 183 hospitals and private rheumatology clinics in 20 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, UK, and USA). Eligible participants were patients with active rheumatoid arthritis aged at least 18 years, with four or more of 68 tender joints and four or more of 66 swollen joints, who were refractory or intolerant to previous treatment with at least one anti-TNF drug. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) via a central interactive voice or web response system to either placebo every 2 weeks, 50 mg sirukumab every 4 weeks, or 100 mg sirukumab every 2 weeks, all given for 52 weeks or less. We allowed participants to continue using any concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We based the randomisation on a computer-generated, permuted-block schedule stratified by use of methotrexate at baseline (0, >0 to <12·5 mg/week, or ≥12·5 mg/week). Masking was achieved with the use of multipart labels on the study drug containers which contained directions for use and other information, but not the drug's identity. Treatments were administered by subcutaneous injection; patients assigned to 50 mg sirukumab given every 4 weeks also received a placebo injection every 2 weeks to maintain masking. At week 18, placebo-treated patients meeting early escape criteria (<20% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts) were randomly reassigned to either 50 mg or 100 mg of sirukumab. All remaining placebo-treated patients were subsequently randomly reassigned at week 24 to either sirukumab dose (crossover). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a response of at least 20% improvement at week 16 according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants). Safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose (partial or complete) of study drug. This study is registered at EudraCT (number: 2010-022243-38) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT01606761).Between July 25, 2012, and Jan 12, 2016, we randomly assigned 878 patients to treatment: 294 to placebo, 292 to 50 mg sirukumab every 4 weeks, and 292 to 100 mg sirukumab every 2 weeks. 523 (60%) of 878 patients had previously received two or more biological treatments including non-TNF drugs, and 166 (19%) of 878 were not taking a DMARD at baseline. The proportions of patients who achieved an ACR20 response at week 16 were 117 (40%) of 292 with 50 mg sirukumab every 4 weeks, and 132 (45%) of 292 with 100 mg sirukumab every 2 weeks versus 71 (24%) of 294 with placebo; differences compared with placebo were 0·16 (95% CI 0·09-0·23) for 50 mg sirukumab every 4 weeks and 0·21 (0·14-0·29) for 100 mg sirukumab every 2 weeks (both p<0·0001). Adverse event incidences in the 24-week placebo-controlled period were similar across groups (at least one event occurred for 182 patients assigned to placebo [62%, including early escape patients switched to sirukumab at week 18] of 294; 194 [66%] of 292 with 50 mg sirukumab every 4 weeks; and 207 [71%] of 292 with 100 mg sirukumab every 2 weeks). The most common adverse events in this period were injection-site erythema (four [1%] with placebo, 22 [8%] with 50 mg sirukumab every 4 weeks, and 41 [14%] with 100 mg sirukumab every 2 weeks). At week 52, of all patients receiving sirukumab including those reassigned from placebo, the most common adverse events were again injection-site erythema (33 [8%] of 416 with 50 mg sirukumab every 4 weeks and 66 [16%] of 418 with 100 mg sirukumab every 2 weeks).In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who were refractory or intolerant to anti-TNF drugs and other biological treatments, both dosing regimens of sirukumab were well tolerated and significantly improved signs and symptoms of the disease, compared with placebo, in this difficult-to-treat population.Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and GlaxoSmithKline.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is implicated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathophysiology. Unlike IL-6 receptor inhibitors, sirukumab is a human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the IL-6 cytokine. The phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group SIRROUND-D study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01604343) evaluated the efficacy and safety of sirukumab in patients with active RA refractory to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.Patients were randomised 1:1:1 to treatment with sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks, 50 mg every 4 weeks or placebo every 2 weeks subcutaneously. Results through week 52 are reported.Of 1670 randomised patients, significantly more patients achieved American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 16 (coprimary endpoint) with sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (53.5%) or 50 mg every 4 weeks (54.8%) versus placebo (26.4%; both p<0.001). Mean (SD) change from baseline in modified Sharp/van der Heijde score at week 52 (coprimary endpoint) was significantly lower with sirukumab (100 mg every 2 weeks: 0.46 (3.26); 50 mg every 4 weeks: 0.50 (2.96)) versus placebo (3.69 (9.25); both p<0.001). All major secondary endpoints (week 24 Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index change from baseline, ACR50 response, 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C reactive protein and major clinical response (ACR70 for six continuous months by week 52)) were met. The most common adverse events with sirukumab were elevated liver enzymes, upper respiratory tract infection, injection site erythema and nasopharyngitis.Sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks and 50 mg every 4 weeks led to significant reductions in RA symptoms, inhibition of structural damage progression and physical function and quality of life improvements, with an expected safety profile.NCT01604343; Results.© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 study compared monotherapy with sirukumab, an anti-interleukin-6 cytokine monoclonal antibody, with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Biologic-naïve patients with active RA who were inadequate responders or were intolerant to, or inappropriate for, methotrexate were randomised to subcutaneous sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (n=187), sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (n=186) or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (n=186). Primary endpoints at week 24 were change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response; these endpoints were tested in sequential order. This study is registered at EudraCT (number: 2013-001417-32) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT02019472).Significantly greater improvements from baseline in mean (SD) DAS28 (ESR) were observed at week 24 with sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (-2.96 (1.580)) versus adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (-2.19 (1.437); P<0.001). Sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks also showed significantly greater improvement from baseline at week 24 in DAS28 (ESR) (-2.58 (1.524)) compared with adalimumab (P=0.013). The ACR50 response rates with the 100 mg (35.3%) and 50 mg (26.9%) doses of sirukumab were comparable to that with adalimumab (31.7%) at week 24. The safety profile of sirukumab was consistent with that observed with anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibodies. A dose-related effect on the incidence of injection-site reactions was observed with sirukumab.Sirukumab monotherapy showed greater improvements in DAS28 (ESR), but similar ACR50 response rates, versus adalimumab monotherapy.© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

To assess the overall safety, including rare events, of intravenous (IV) abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Data from 8 clinical trials of IV abatacept in RA were pooled. Safety events were assessed during the short-term (duration ≤ 12 months) and cumulative (short-term plus longterm extensions) abatacept treatment periods. Incidence rates per 100 patient-years were calculated. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for hospitalized infections and malignancies were compared with external RA cohorts and, for malignancies, with the US general population.There were 3173 IV abatacept-treated patients with 2331 patient-years of exposure in the short-term periods, and 4149 IV abatacept-treated patients with 12,132 patient-years of exposure in the cumulative period. Incidence rates for serious infections were low and consistent over time (3.68 for abatacept vs 2.60 for placebo during the short-term, and 2.87 for abatacept during the cumulative period). Hospitalized infections were generally similar to external RA patient cohorts and were consistent over time. Incidence rates of malignancies were similar for abatacept- and placebo-treated patients during the short-term period (0.73 vs 0.59) and remained low during the abatacept cumulative period (0.73). SIR of some tissue-specific malignancies (e.g., colorectal and breast) in the cumulative period tended to be lower, while others (lymphoma and lung) tended to be higher, compared with the general population; however, incidence rates were comparable with RA cohorts. Autoimmune events were rare and infusion reactions uncommon.Longterm safety of IV abatacept was consistent with the short-term, with no unexpected events and low incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events.

Our study aimed to evaluate the longterm efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA), and to explore factors that increase its longterm efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated in routine clinical practice.There were 231 participants with RA treated with ABA who were prospectively registered in a Japanese multicenter registry. They were followed up for at least 52 weeks.Mean age of the patients was 64.3 years, mean disease duration was 12.1 years, mean 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)-C-reactive protein was 4.49, and 48.5% of patients were concomitantly treated with methotrexate (MTX). Overall retention rate of ABA was 77.1% at 52 weeks; 14.8% of patients discontinued because of inadequate response and 3.5% because of adverse events. The proportion of patients achieving DAS28-defined low disease activity (LDA) significantly increased from baseline to 52 weeks (7.3% to 43.8%, p < 0.01); 40.9% of patients who did not achieve LDA at 24 weeks had more than 1 categorical improvement in DAS28-defined disease activity at 52 weeks. Multivariate logistic regression revealed concomitant MTX use to be an independent predictor of the categorical improvement in DAS28-defined disease activity from 24 to 52 weeks (adjusted OR 3.124, p = 0.010).In routine clinical practice, ABA demonstrated satisfactory clinical efficacy and safety in patients with established RA for 52 weeks. The clinical efficacy of ABA increased with time even after 24 weeks, and this was strongly influenced by concomitant MTX use. Our study provides valuable real-world findings on the longterm management of RA with ABA.

Little data are available regarding the rate and predicting factors of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept (ABA) in daily practice. We therefore addressed this issue using real-life data from the Orencia and Rheumatoid Arthritis (ORA) registry.ORA is an independent 5-year prospective registry promoted by the French Society of Rheumatology that includes patients with RA treated with ABA. At baseline, 3 months, 6 months and every 6 months or at disease relapse, during 5 years, standardised information is prospectively collected by trained clinical nurses. A serious infection was defined as an infection occurring during treatment with ABA or during the 3 months following withdrawal of ABA without any initiation of a new biologic and requiring hospitalisation and/or intravenous antibiotics and/or resulting in death.Baseline characteristics and comorbidities: among the 976 patients included with a follow-up of at least 3 months (total follow-up of 1903 patient-years), 78 serious infections occurred in 69 patients (4.1/100 patient-years). Predicting factors of serious infections: on univariate analysis, an older age, history of previous serious or recurrent infections, diabetes and a lower number of previous anti-tumour necrosis factor were associated with a higher risk of serious infections. On multivariate analysis, only age (HR per 10-year increase 1.44, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.76, p=0.001) and history of previous serious or recurrent infections (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.20, p=0.009) were significantly associated with a higher risk of serious infections.In common practice, patients treated with ABA had more comorbidities than in clinical trials and serious infections were slightly more frequently observed. In the ORA registry, predictive risk factors of serious infections include age and history of serious infections.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Evaluation of long-term safety of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Pooled observed case analysis of data from patients with moderate-to-severe, active RA treated with rituximab in a global clinical trial programme.As of September 2010, 3194 patients had received up to 17 rituximab courses over 9.5 years (11 962 patient-years). Of these, 627 had >5 years' follow-up (4418 patient-years). A pooled placebo population (n=818) (placebo+methotrexate (MTX)) was also analysed. Serious adverse event and infection rates generally remained stable over time and multiple courses. The overall serious infection event (SIE) rate was 3.94/100 patient-years (3.26/100 patient-years in patients observed for >5 years) and was comparable with placebo+MTX (3.79/100 patient-years). Serious opportunistic infections were rare. Overall, 22.4% (n=717) of rituximab-treated patients developed low immunoglobulin (Ig)M and 3.5% (n=112) low IgG levels for ≥4 months after ≥1 course. SIE rates were similar before and during/after development of low Ig levels; however, in patients with low IgG, rates were higher than in patients who never developed low IgG. Rates of myocardial infarction and stroke were consistent with rates in the general RA population. No increased risk of malignancy over time was observed.This analysis demonstrates that rituximab remains generally well tolerated over time and multiple courses, with a safety profile consistent with published data and clinical trial experience. Overall, the findings indicate that there was no evidence of an increased safety risk or increased reporting rates of any types of adverse events with prolonged exposure to rituximab during the 9.5 years of observation.