Maurizio Cutolo

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

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.

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.

EULAR evidence-based recommendations on the management of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of systemic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in rheumatic diseases. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group from 11 European countries, Canada and the USA consisted of 15 rheumatologists, 1 internist, 1 rheumatologist–epidemiologist, 1 health professional, 1 patient and 1 research fellow. The Delphi method was used to agree on 10 key propositions related to the safe use of GCs. A systematic literature search of PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library was then used to identify the best available research evidence to support each of the 10 propositions. The strength of recommendation was given according to research evidence, clinical expertise and perceived patient preference. Results: The 10 propositions were generated through three Delphi rounds and included patient education, risk factors, adverse effects, concomitant therapy (ie, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection and cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors, calcium and vitamin D, bisphosphonates) and special safety advice (ie, adrenal insufficiency, pregnancy, growth impairment). Conclusion: Ten key recommendations for the management of systemic GC-therapy were formulated using a combination of systematically retrieved research evidence and expert consensus. There are areas of importance that have little evidence (ie, dosing and tapering strategies, timing, risk factors and monitoring for adverse effects, perioperative GC-replacement) and need further research; therefore also a research agenda was composed.

Anti-inflammatory mechanisms of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis

Methotrexate (MTX) is a folate analogue originally synthesised in the 1940s and designed to inhibit dihydrofolate reductase.1 Reduced folate (tetrahydrofolate) is the proximal single carbon donor in several reactions involved in the de novo synthetic pathways for purine and pyrimidine precursors of DNA and RNA required for cell proliferation. Furthermore, tetrahydrofolate plays a part in a second important biochemical step: the methionine-homocysteine cycle, which is necessary to provide a methyl group for several downstream reactions such as methylation of DNA, RNA proteins, and others. Therefore, MTX has been used extensively for treatment of neoplastic diseases. In 1951 the rationale for the introduction of MTX for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was that it inhibited proliferation of the lymphocytes and other cells responsible for inflammation in the joint.2 No further studies on clinical experience with MTX in RA were published until the early 1980s, when several uncontrolled trials were reported.3-8 Finally, four well designed, blinded, placebo controlled studies published in 1984 and 1985 introduced the use of MTX in the treatment of RA.9-12 The early indications for MTX use in the rheumatic diseases were first reported in a large review in 1984.13 From the considerable experience obtained over the past 15 years, several lines of evidence clearly suggest that MTX does not act simply as a cytotoxic (antiproliferative) agent for the cells responsible for the joint inflammation in RA.14 As a matter of fact, it would be difficult to understand how a drug that diminishes inflammation by preventing proliferation of immune cells might work at effective concentrations for only a very short time and once a week. In addition, the rapid clinical remission and the short term effect on the acute phase reactants, as seen with low dose MTX administration in most patients with …

Phase IIb dose‐ranging study of the oral JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (CP‐690,550) or adalimumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 5 doses of oral tofacitinib (CP-690,550) or adalimumab monotherapy with placebo for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS In this 24-week, double-blind, phase IIb study, patients with RA (n = 384) were randomized to receive placebo, tofacitinib at 1, 3, 5, 10, or 15 mg administered orally twice a day, or adalimumab at 40 mg injected subcutaneously every 2 weeks (total of 6 injections) followed by oral tofacitinib at 5 mg twice a day for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the responder rate according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS Treatment with tofacitinib at a dose of ≥3 mg twice a day resulted in a rapid response with significant efficacy when compared to placebo, as indicated by the primary end point (ACR20 response at week 12), achieved in 39.2% (3 mg; P ≤ 0.05), 59.2% (5 mg; P < 0.0001), 70.5% (10 mg; P < 0.0001), and 71.9% (15 mg; P < 0.0001) in the tofacitinib group and 35.9% of patients in the adalimumab group (P = 0.105), compared with 22.0% of patients receiving placebo. Improvements were sustained at week 24, according to the ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates as well as classifications of remission according to the 3-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using C-reactive protein and the 4-variable DAS28 using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in patients across all tofacitinib treatment arms (n = 272) were urinary tract infection (7.7%), diarrhea (4.8%), headache (4.8%), and bronchitis (4.8%). CONCLUSION Tofacitinib monotherapy at ≥3 mg twice a day was efficacious in the treatment of patients with active RA over 24 weeks and demonstrated a manageable safety profile.

Standardised nomenclature for glucocorticoid dosages and glucocorticoid treatment regimens : current questions and tentative answers in rheumatology

In rheumatology and other medical specialties there is a discrepancy between the widespread use and the imprecise designation of glucocorticoid treatment regimens. Verbal descriptions of glucocorticoid treatment regimens used in various phases of diseases vary between countries and institutions. Given this background, a workshop under the auspices of the EULAR Standing Committee on International Clinical Studies including Therapeutic Trials was held to discuss this issue and to seek a consensus on nomenclature for glucocorticoid treatment. This report summarises the panels discussion and recognises that answers derived from consensus conferences are not definitive. Nevertheless, recommendations on glucocorticoid treatment are presented that (1) reflect current and best knowledge available and (2) take into account current clinical practice. A question-answer rationale presentation style has been chosen to convey the messages, to summarise the meeting in a readable format, and to avoid dogmatism.

European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update

Background Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations. Methods A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated. Results The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used. Conclusions These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.

Women, men, and rheumatoid arthritis: Analyses of disease activity, disease characteristics, and treatments in the QUEST-RA Study

IntroductionGender as a predictor of outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has evoked considerable interest over the decades. Historically, there is no consensus whether RA is worse in females or males. Recent reports suggest that females are less likely than males to achieve remission. Therefore, we aimed to study possible associations of gender and disease activity, disease characteristics, and treatments of RA in a large multinational cross-sectional cohort of patients with RA called Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA (QUEST-RA).MethodsThe cohort includes clinical and questionnaire data from patients who were seen in usual care, including 6,004 patients at 70 sites in 25 countries as of April 2008. Gender differences were analyzed for American College of Rheumatology Core Data Set measures of disease activity, DAS28 (disease activity score using 28 joint counts), fatigue, the presence of rheumatoid factor, nodules and erosions, and the current use of prednisone, methotrexate, and biologic agents.ResultsWomen had poorer scores than men in all Core Data Set measures. The mean values for females and males were swollen joint count-28 (SJC28) of 4.5 versus 3.8, tender joint count-28 of 6.9 versus 5.4, erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 30 versus 26, Health Assessment Questionnaire of 1.1 versus 0.8, visual analog scales for physician global estimate of 3.0 versus 2.5, pain of 4.3 versus 3.6, patient global status of 4.2 versus 3.7, DAS28 of 4.3 versus 3.8, and fatigue of 4.6 versus 3.7 (P < 0.001). However, effect sizes were small-medium and smallest (0.13) for SJC28. Among patients who had no or minimal disease activity (0 to 1) on SJC28, women had statistically significantly higher mean values compared with men in all other disease activity measures (P < 0.001) and met DAS28 remission less often than men. Rheumatoid factor was equally prevalent among genders. Men had nodules more often than women. Women had erosions more often than men, but the statistical significance was marginal. Similar proportions of females and males were taking different therapies.ConclusionsIn this large multinational cohort, RA disease activity measures appear to be worse in women than in men. However, most of the gender differences in RA disease activity may originate from the measures of disease activity rather than from RA disease activity itself.

Physical inactivity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from twenty-one countries in a cross-sectional, international study.

OBJECTIVE Regular physical activity is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been advised to limit physical exercise. We studied the prevalence of physical activity and associations with demographic and disease-related variables in patients with RA from 21 countries. METHODS The Questionnaires in Standard Monitoring of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (QUEST-RA) is a cross-sectional study that includes a self-report questionnaire and clinical assessment of nonselected consecutive outpatients with RA who are receiving usual clinical care. Frequency of physical exercise (>or=30 minutes with at least some shortness of breath, sweating) is queried with 4 response options: >or=3 times weekly, 1-2 times weekly, 1-2 times monthly, and no exercise. RESULTS Between January 2005 and April 2007, a total of 5,235 patients from 58 sites in 21 countries were enrolled in QUEST-RA: 79% were women, >90% were white, mean age was 57 years, and mean disease duration was 11.6 years. Only 13.8% of all patients reported physical exercise>or=3 times weekly. The majority of the patients were physically inactive with no regular weekly exercise: >80% in 7 countries, 60-80% in 12 countries, and 45% and 29% in 2 countries, respectively. Physical inactivity was associated with female sex, older age, lower education, obesity, comorbidity, low functional capacity, and higher levels of disease activity, pain, and fatigue. CONCLUSION In many countries, a low proportion of patients with RA exercise. These data may alert rheumatologists to motivate their patients to increase physical activity levels.

Vitamin D in rheumatoid arthritis

The discovery of the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in the cells of the immune system and the fact that activated dendritic cells produce the vitamin D hormone suggested that vitamin D could have immunoregulatory properties. VDR, a member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily, was identified in mononuclear cells, dendritic cells, antigen-presenting cells, and activated T-B lymphocytes. In synthesis, the most evident effects of the D-hormone on the immune system seem to be in the downregulation of the Th1-driven autoimmunity. Low serum levels of vitamin D3 might be partially related, among other factors, to prolonged daily darkness (reduced activation of the pre vitamin D by the ultra violet B sunlight), different genetic background (i.e. vitamin D receptor polymorphism) and nutritional factors, and explain to the latitute-related prevalence of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), by considering the potential immunosuppressive roles of vitamin D. 25(OH)D3 plasma levels have been found inversely correlated at least with the RA disease activity showing a circannual rhythm (more severe in winter). Recently, greater intake of vitamin D was associated with a lower risk of RA, as well as a significant clinical improvement was strongly correlated with the immunomodulating potential in vitamin D-treated RA patients.