Juan J. Gomez-Reino

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force

Background Aiming at therapeutic targets has reduced the risk of organ failure in many diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Such targets have not been defined for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objective To develop recommendations for achieving optimal therapeutic outcomes in RA. Methods A task force of rheumatologists and a patient developed a set of recommendations on the basis of evidence derived from a systematic literature review and expert opinion; these were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >60 experts from various regions of the world in a Delphi-like procedure. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Results The treat-to-target activity resulted in 10 recommendations. The treatment aim was defined as remission with low disease activity being an alternative goal in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with appropriate therapeutic adaptation to reach the desired state within 3 to a maximum of 6 months was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity which include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease. Levels of agreement were very high for many of these recommendations (≥9/10). Conclusion The 10 recommendations are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.

Effects of AIN457, a Fully Human Antibody to Interleukin-17A, on Psoriasis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Uveitis

A human antibody to interleukin-17A is well tolerated and may be effective in the treatment of psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and noninfectious uveitis. Stopping Inflammation in Its Tracks Inflammation—characterized by redness, swelling, and pain and derived from the Latin word inflammare (to set on fire)—is the body’s principal defense against infection and injury. Once the infection has been squelched by the immune system, the inflammatory response is usually switched off. Sometimes, however, immune cells activated during inflammation elude the “off switch,” resulting in tissue destruction and various diseases—including cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and skin disorders such as psoriasis. Cytokines that activate immune cells are key drivers of inflammation. To address whether blocking one of these cytokines, interleukin-17A (IL-17A), might be a useful therapeutic strategy for treating inflammatory diseases, Hueber and colleagues used a human monoclonal antibody (AIN457) against IL-17A to treat patients in three small proof-of-concept trials for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis (eye inflammation). Their results demonstrate that IL-17A participates in these diseases and that the antibody against this cytokine may be an effective therapeutic agent. The proinflammatory cytokine IL-17A is produced by T helper 17 (TH17) cells and affects many different cell types including macrophages and dendritic cells of the immune system, as well as epithelial, endothelial, and skin cells. IL-17A has been implicated in psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis, but its exact role is unclear. The etiologies and symptoms of these three diseases are very different. TH17 and TH1 cells have been implicated in both psoriasis (characterized by excessive turnover of skin cells resulting in scaly skin patches) and uveitis (intraocular inflammation that can lead to vision loss). In contrast, in the autoimmune disease rheumatoid arthritis, autoreactive T and B cells together with autoantibodies promote prolonged inflammation, ultimately resulting in the destruction of cartilage and bone. In their three proof-of-concept trials, Hueber and co-workers treated a total of 60 patients with the human monoclonal antibody AIN457 at different doses and observed no major adverse effects. Although the trials were small and the results were preliminary, improvements were seen in all three disease groups. Psoriasis patients receiving AIN457 showed reduced scaly skin patches, decreased production of inflammatory cytokines, and a reduction in T cells infiltrating the skin lesions compared with placebo-treated patients. After receiving infusions of AIN457, rheumatoid arthritis patients exhibited reduced inflammation of the synovial joints as shown by improvements in three different clinical scores compared with placebo-treated patients. Meanwhile, patients with uveitis treated with AIN457 showed improved visual acuity, reduced ocular inflammation, or a reduced need for steroid drugs after 8 weeks. These encouraging results warrant larger clinical trials to assess further the safety and efficacy of AIN457 for treating psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis and perhaps other inflammatory diseases in which IL-17A has been implicated. Interleukin-17A (IL-17A) is elaborated by the T helper 17 (TH17) subset of TH cells and exhibits potent proinflammatory properties in animal models of autoimmunity, including collagen-induced arthritis, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, and experimental autoimmune uveitis. To determine whether IL-17A mediates human inflammatory diseases, we investigated the efficacy and safety of AIN457, a human antibody to IL-17A, in patients with psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic noninfectious uveitis. Patients with chronic plaque-type psoriasis (n = 36), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 52), or chronic noninfectious uveitis (n = 16) were enrolled in clinical trials to evaluate the effects of neutralizing IL-17A by AIN457 at doses of 3 to 10 mg/kg, given intravenously. We evaluated efficacy by measuring the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), the American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) for rheumatoid arthritis, or the number of responders for uveitis, as defined by either vision improvement or reduction in ocular inflammation or corticosteroid dose. AIN457 treatment induced clinically relevant responses of variable magnitude in patients suffering from each of these diverse immune-mediated diseases. Variable response rates may be due to heterogeneity in small patient populations, differential pathogenic roles of IL-17A in these diseases, and the different involvement or activation of IL-17A–producing cells. The rates of adverse events, including infections, were similar in the AIN457 and placebo groups. These results support a role for IL-17A in the pathophysiology of diverse inflammatory diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and noninfectious uveitis.

American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Definition of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis for Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. METHODS A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (e.g., tender and swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and global assessments on a 0-10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year followup data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score-based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patients RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (a) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0-10 scale) are all ≤ 1, or (b) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤ 3.3. CONCLUSION We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. We recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

Interleukin‐6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs: The tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug therapy study

OBJECTIVE To examine the efficacy and safety of the humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab combined with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS A total of 1,220 patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) in the phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOWARD (Tocilizumab in Combination With Traditional DMARD Therapy) study. Patients remained on stable doses of DMARDs and received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo (control group) every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. RESULTS At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) was significantly greater in the tocilizumab plus DMARD group than in the control group (61% versus 25%; P<0.0001). Secondary end points including 50% or 70% improvement (ACR50/70), the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), DAS28 remission responses (DAS28<2.6), European League Against Rheumatism responses, and systemic markers such as the C-reactive protein and hemoglobin levels showed superiority of tocilizumab plus DMARDs over DMARDs alone. Seventy-three percent of patients in the tocilizumab group had >or=1 adverse event (AE), compared with 61% of patients in the control group. AEs leading to withdrawal from the study were infrequent (4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 2% of those in the control group). Serious AEs occurred in 6.7% and 4.3% of patients in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively, and serious infections occurred in 2.7% and 1.9%, respectively. Elevations in the alanine aminotransferase level, from normal at baseline to >3-fold the upper limit of normal, occurred in 4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 1% of those in the control group, and elevated total cholesterol levels were observed in 23% and 6% of patients, respectively. Sixteen patients started lipid-lowering therapy during the study. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 3.7% of patients receiving tocilizumab and none of the patients in the control group, and no grade 4 neutropenia was reported. CONCLUSION Tocilizumab combined with any of the DMARDs evaluated was safe and effective in reducing articular and systemic symptoms in patients with an inadequate response to these agents.

Comparison of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: the AMBITION study

Background: The anti-interleukin (IL) 6 receptor antibody tocilizumab inhibits signalling of IL6, a key cytokine in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis. Objective: To evaluate through the AMBITION study the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate in patients with active RA for whom previous treatment with methotrexate/biological agents had not failed. Methods: This 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, randomised 673 patients to either tocilizumab 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or methotrexate, starting at 7.5 mg/week and titrated to 20 mg/week within 8 weeks, or placebo for 8 weeks followed by tocilizumab 8 mg/kg. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 24. Results: The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that tocilizumab was better than methotrexate treatment with a higher ACR20 response (69.9 vs 52.5%; p<0.001), and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) <2.6 rate (33.6 vs 12.1%) at week 24. Mean high-sensitivity C-reactive protein was within the normal range from week 12 with tocilizumab, whereas levels remained elevated with methotrexate. The incidence of serious adverse events with tocilizumab was 3.8% versus 2.8% with methotrexate (p = 0.50), and of serious infections, 1.4% versus 0.7%, respectively. There was a higher incidence of reversible grade 3 neutropenia (3.1% vs 0.4%) and increased total cholesterol ⩾240 mg/dl (13.2% vs 0.4%), and a lower incidence of alanine aminotransferase elevations >3×–<5× upper limit of normal (1.0% vs 2.5%), respectively. Conclusion: Tocilizumab monotherapy is better than methotrexate monotherapy, with rapid improvement in RA signs and symptoms, and a favourable benefit–risk, in patients for whom treatment with methotrexate or biological agents has not previously failed. Trial registration number: NCT00109408

FRI0298 The Impact of DMARD Co-Therapy on Abatacept Effectiveness in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients. A Pan-European Analysis of RA Registries

Background Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bioDMARDs) are generally used in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Anti-TNF agents are more effective in combination with csDMARDs (COMBO) than as monotherapy (MONO), while this is debated with some of the newer bioDMARDs.(1) In particular, no difference was found in patients (pts) with insufficient response to TNF-inhibitors taking abatacept (ABA) in MONO vs. COMBO.(2) Objectives To compare the effectiveness of ABA started as MONO or in COMBO in RA pts treated in routine care. Methods This is a pooled observational database analysis of 9 prospective cohorts of RA pts (Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland). We included all RA pts treated with ABA with information on concomitant csDMARDs use at initiation of ABA treatment. Primary endpoint was drug retention of ABA, defined as the time between drug initiation and last administration plus one dispensation interval, and analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. A secondary endpoint was EULAR good or moderate response rate at one year, estimated by longitudinal interpolation and corrected for drug retention (Lundex (3)). All analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, e.g. calendar year, demographics, country and disease characteristics. Results We identified 3461 pts initiating ABA with 5475 pt-years of follow-up. Of these, 2314 pts (67%) received ABA in COMBO (53% - methotrexate, 8% - leflunomide, 6% - other csDMARDs) and 1147 pts (33%) in MONO. Pts on MONO were older (mean 59 vs. 57 years, p<0.001) and had longer disease duration (mean 11 vs. 12 years, p=0.005). Other demographic and disease characteristics were balanced. The median retention time of ABA in MONO was 2.02 years (IQR: 1.76 – 2.27) compared to 2.05 years (IQR: 1.90 – 2.22) in COMBO (p=0.76). No significant difference in ABA retention rates was found with or without sDMARD cotherapy (Hazard Ratio (HR) MONO vs COMBO: 1.02 (95%CI: 0.92 – 1.13)). Furthermore, ABA drug retention did not differ between the various sDMARDs cotherapy combinations. Results remained similar when examining only ABA treatment discontinuations for ineffectiveness (HR MONO vs COMBO: 0.97 (95%CI: 0.84 – 1.13)). Furthermore, both the EULAR response rates and the Lundex based on EULAR response rates at one year were similar with or without sDMARD cotherapy (81% EULAR good or moderate responses on ABA MONO vs. 80% on COMBO, p=0.55. Lundex responders 55% on ABA MONO vs. 55% on COMBO, p=0.91). We found no effect modification by country. Conclusions The results of this large pooled RA population of mostly inadequate responders to anti-TNFs, suggest that ABA retention and response to ABA treatment are not influenced by csDMARDs cotherapy. References Emery P. et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Dec;72(12):1897-904. Schiff M et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1708–14. Kristensen LE. et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Feb;54(2):600-6. Disclosure of Interest A. Finckh Grant/research support: Unrestricted Research grant from BMS, D. Neto Grant/research support: Unrestricted Research grant from BMS, J. Gomez-Reino: None declared, F. Iannone: None declared, E. Lie: None declared, H. Canhão: None declared, K. Pavelka: None declared, C. Turesson: None declared, X. Mariette: None declared, J.-E. Gottenberg: None declared, M. Hetland: None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.3004

Adipokines as emerging mediators of immune response and inflammation

The scientific interest in the biology of white adipose tissue (WAT) has increased since the discovery of leptin in 1994. The description of the product of the gene obese (ob) demonstrated the role of adipose tissue in the physiopathology of obesity-related diseases, and helped to increase the identification of numerous other adipokines, many of a pro-inflammatory nature. It has become increasingly evident that WAT-derived adipokines can be considered as a hub between obesity-related exogenous factors, such as nutrition and lifestyle, and the molecular events that lead to metabolic syndrome, inflammatory and/or autoimmune conditions, and rheumatic diseases. In this Review, we will discuss the progress in adipokine research, focusing particular attention to the roles of leptin, adiponectin, resistin, visfatin, and other recently identified adipokines in inflammatory, autoimmune and rheumatic diseases.

Golimumab, a new human tumor necrosis factor α antibody, administered every four weeks as a subcutaneous injection in psoriatic arthritis: Twenty-four–week efficacy and safety results of a randomized, placebo-controlled study†

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS Adult patients with PsA who had at least 3 swollen and 3 tender joints and active psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 113), golimumab 50 mg (n = 146), or golimumab 100 mg (n = 146) every 4 weeks through week 20. Efficacy assessments through week 24 included the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) in patients in whom at least 3% of the body surface area was affected by psoriasis at baseline, the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), the physicians global assessment of psoriatic nail disease, and enthesitis (using the PsA-modified Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score [MASES] index). RESULTS At week 14, 48% of all patients receiving golimumab, 51% of patients receiving golimumab 50 mg, and 45% of patients receiving golimumab 100 mg achieved an ACR20 response (the primary end point), compared with 9% of patients receiving placebo (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among the 74% of patients in whom at least 3% of the body surface area was affected by psoriasis at baseline, 40% of those in the golimumab 50 mg group and 58% of those in the golimumab 100 mg group had at least 75% improvement in the PASI at week 14 (major secondary end point), compared with 3% of placebo-treated patients (P < 0.001 for both doses). Significant improvement was observed for other major secondary end points (the HAQ and the SF-36), the NAPSI, the physicians global assessment of psoriatric nail disease, and the PsA-modified MASES index in each golimumab group compared with placebo. This efficacy was maintained through week 24. Golimumab was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION Treatment with golimumab at doses of 50 mg and 100 mg significantly improved active PsA and associated skin and nail psoriasis through week 24.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

Background Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. Objective To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. Methods A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Results The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). Conclusions The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Leptin, from fat to inflammation: old questions and new insights

Leptin is 16 kDa adipokine that links nutritional status with neuroendocrine and immune functions. Initially thought to be a satiety factor that regulates body weight by inhibiting food intake and stimulating energy expenditure, leptin is a pleiotropic hormone whose multiple effects include regulation of endocrine function, reproduction, and immunity. Leptin can be considered as a pro‐inflammatory cytokine that belongs to the family of long‐chain helical cytokines and has structural similarity with interleukin‐6, prolactin, growth hormone, IL‐12, IL‐15, granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor and oncostatin M. Because of its dual nature as a hormone and cytokine, leptin links the neuroendocrine and the immune system. The role of leptin in the modulation of immune response and inflammation has recently become increasingly evident. The increase in leptin production that occurs during infection and inflammation strongly suggests that leptin is a part of the cytokine network which governs the inflammatory‐immune response and the host defense mechanisms. Leptin plays an important role in inflammatory processes involving T cells and has been reported to modulate T‐helper cells activity in the cellular immune response. Several studies have implicated leptin in the pathogenesis of autoimmune inflammatory conditions, such as experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and intestinal inflammation. Very recently, a key role for leptin in osteoarthritis has been demonstrated: leptin indeed exhibits, in concert with other pro‐inflammatory cytokines, a detrimental effect on articular cartilage by promoting nitric oxide synthesis in chondrocytes. Here, we review the recent advances regarding leptin biology with a special focus on those actions relevant to the role of leptin in the pathophysiology of inflammatory processes and immune responses.