Peter Nash

Psoriatic arthritis: epidemiology, clinical features, course, and outcome

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been defined as a unique inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis. Its exact prevalence is unknown, but estimates vary from 0.3% to 1% of the population. The clinical features described initially are recognised by most experienced clinicians, although they are most distinct in early disease. Initially, PsA typically presents as an oligoarticular and mild disease. However, with time PsA becomes polyarticular, and it is a severe disease in at least 20% of patients. Patients with PsA who present with polyarticular disease are at risk for disease progression. In addition to progression of clinical and radiological damage, health related quality of life is reduced among patients with PsA. It important to note that patients included in recent drug trials resemble patients followed prospectively in a clinic.

Treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis

Objective: To develop comprehensive recommendations for the treatment of the various clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) based on evidence obtained from a systematic review of the literature and from consensus opinion. Methods: Formal literature reviews of treatment for the most significant discrete clinical manifestations of PsA (skin and nails, peripheral arthritis, axial disease, dactylitis and enthesitis) were performed and published by members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). Treatment recommendations were drafted for each of the clinical manifestations by rheumatologists, dermatologists and PsA patients based on the literature reviews and consensus opinion. The level of agreement for the individual treatment recommendations among GRAPPA members was assessed with an online questionnaire. Results: Treatment recommendations were developed for peripheral arthritis, axial disease, psoriasis, nail disease, dactylitis and enthesitis in the setting of PsA. In rotal, 19 recommendations were drafted, and over 80% agreement was obtained on 16 of them. In addition, a grid that factors disease severity into each of the different disease manifestations was developed to help the clinician with treatment decisions for the individual patient from an evidenced-based perspective. Conclusions: Treatment recommendations for the cardinal physical manifestations of PsA were developed based on a literature review and consensus between rheumatologists and dermatologists. In addition, a grid was established to assist in therapeutic reasoning and decision making for individual patients. It is anticipated that periodic updates will take place using this framework as new data become available.

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.

Golimumab, a human anti–tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody, injected subcutaneously every four weeks in methotrexate‐naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Twenty‐four–week results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of golimumab before methotrexate as first‐line therapy for early‐onset rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of golimumab in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS MTX-naive patients with RA (n = 637) were randomized to receive placebo plus MTX (group 1), golimumab 100 mg plus placebo (group 2), golimumab 50 mg plus MTX (group 3), or golimumab 100 mg plus MTX (group 4). Subcutaneous injections of golimumab or placebo were administered every 4 weeks. The dosage of MTX/placebo capsules started at 10 mg/week and escalated to 20 mg/week. The primary end point, the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR50 response) at week 24, required significant differences between groups 3 and 4 combined (combined group) versus group 1 and significant differences in a pairwise comparison (group 3 or group 4 versus group 1). RESULTS An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the ACR50 response at week 24 did not show a significant difference between the combined group and group 1 (38.4% and 29.4%, respectively; P=0.053), while a post hoc modified ITT analysis (excluding 3 untreated patients) of the ACR50 response showed statistically significant differences between the combined group and group 1 (38.5% versus 29.4%; P=0.049) and between group 3 (40.5%; P=0.038) but not group 4 (36.5%; P=0.177) and group 1. Group 2 was noninferior to group 1 for the ACR50 response at week 24 (33.1%; 95% confidence interval lower bound -5.2%; predefined delta value for noninferiority -10%). The combination of golimumab plus MTX demonstrated a significantly better response compared with placebo plus MTX in most other efficacy parameters, including response/remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Serious adverse events occurred in 7%, 3%, 6%, and 6% of patients in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION Although the primary end point was not met, the modified ITT analysis of the primary end point and other prespecified efficacy measures demonstrated that the efficacy of golimumab plus MTX is better than, and the efficacy of golimumab alone is similar to, the efficacy of MTX alone in reducing RA signs and symptoms in MTX-naive patients, with no unexpected safety concerns.

The efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with non–life‐threatening manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a twelve‐month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate abatacept therapy in patients with non-life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and polyarthritis, discoid lesions, or pleuritis and/or pericarditis. METHODS In a 12-month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, SLE patients with polyarthritis, discoid lesions, or pleuritis and/or pericarditis were randomized at a ratio of 2:1 to receive abatacept (∼10 mg/kg of body weight) or placebo. Prednisone (30 mg/day or equivalent) was given for 1 month, and then the dosage was tapered. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with new flare (adjudicated) according to a score of A/B on the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index after the start of the steroid taper. RESULTS A total of 118 patients were randomized to receive abatacept and 57 to receive placebo. The baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The proportion of new BILAG A/B flares over 12 months was 79.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 72.4, 86.9) in the abatacept group and 82.5% (95% CI 72.6, 92.3) in the placebo group (treatment difference -3.5 [95% CI -15.3, 8.3]). Other prespecified flare end points were not met. In post hoc analyses, the proportions of abatacept-treated and placebo-treated patients with a BILAG A flare were 40.7% (95% CI 31.8, 49.5) versus 54.4% (95% CI 41.5, 67.3), and the proportions with physician-assessed flare were 63.6% (95% CI 54.9, 72.2) and 82.5% (95% CI 72.6, 92.3), respectively; treatment differences were greatest in the polyarthritis group. Prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcomes (Short Form 36 health survey, sleep problems, fatigue) demonstrated a treatment effect with abatacept. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable in the abatacept and placebo groups (90.9% versus 91.5%), but serious AEs (SAEs) were higher in the abatacept group (19.8 versus 6.8%). Most SAEs were single, disease-related events occurring during the first 6 months of the study (including the steroid taper period). CONCLUSION Although the primary/secondary end points were not met in this study, improvements in certain exploratory measures suggest some abatacept efficacy in patients with non-life-threatening manifestations of SLE. The increased rate of SAEs requires further assessment.

Tofacitinib (CP‐690,550) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate: Twelve‐month data from a twenty‐four–month phase III randomized radiographic study

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this 24-month phase III study was to examine structural preservation with tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Data from a planned 12-month interim analysis are reported. METHODS In this double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, patients receiving background MTX were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily, placebo to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, and placebo to tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily. At month 3, nonresponder placebo-treated patients were advanced in a blinded manner to receive tofacitinib as indicated above; remaining placebo-treated patients were advanced at 6 months. Four primary efficacy end points were all analyzed in a step-down procedure. RESULTS At month 6, response rates according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were higher than those for placebo (51.5% and 61.8%, respectively, versus 25.3%; both P < 0.0001). At month 6, least squares mean (LSM) changes in total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 0.12 and 0.06, respectively, versus 0.47 for placebo (P = 0.0792 and P ≤ 0.05, respectively). At month 3, LSM changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were -0.40 (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and -0.54 (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus -0.15 for placebo. At month 6, rates of remission (defined as a value <2.6 for the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate) for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 7.2% (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and 16.0% (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus 1.6% for placebo. The safety profile was consistent with findings in previous studies. CONCLUSION Data from this 12-month interim analysis demonstrate that tofacitinib inhibits progression of structural damage and improves disease activity in patients with RA who are receiving MTX.

Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacology of subcutaneous administration of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX). METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blinded manner to receive injections of placebo plus MTX or 50 mg or 100 mg golimumab every 2 or 4 weeks plus MTX through week 48. Patients originally assigned to receive injections every 2 weeks had the interval increased to every 4 weeks starting at week 20. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 16. The study was powered to detect a difference in the primary end point when the combined golimumab groups and at least 1 of the individual dose groups were compared with placebo. RESULTS The primary end point was attained. Sixty-one percent of patients in the combined golimumab plus MTX dose groups achieved an ACR20 response at week 16 compared with 37% of patients in the placebo plus MTX group (P=0.010). In addition, 79% of patients in the group receiving 100 mg golimumab every 2 weeks achieved an ACR20 response (P<0.001 versus placebo). Through week 20 (after which patients receiving placebo were switched to active infliximab therapy), serious adverse events were reported in 9% of patients in the combined golimumab groups and in 6% of patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSION Golimumab plus MTX effectively reduces the signs and symptoms of RA and is generally well tolerated in patients with an inadequate response to MTX.

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update

Objective A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009–2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations. Methods Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014. Results Of 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care. Conclusions The current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care.

Secukinumab Inhibition of Interleukin-17A in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis

BACKGROUND In a phase 2 study, the inhibition of the interleukin-17A receptor improved signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab, an anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in such patients. METHODS In this double-blind, phase 3 study, 606 patients with psoriatic arthritis were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous secukinumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram) at weeks 0, 2, and 4, followed by subcutaneous secukinumab at a dose of either 150 mg or 75 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. Patients in the placebo group were switched to subcutaneous secukinumab at a dose of 150 mg or 75 mg at week 16 or 24, depending on clinical response. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response at week 24, defined as a 20% improvement from baseline in the number of tender and swollen joints and at least three other important domains. RESULTS ACR20 response rates at week 24 were significantly higher in the group receiving secukinumab at doses of 150 mg (50.0%) and 75 mg (50.5%) than in those receiving placebo (17.3%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Secondary end points, including the ACR50 response and joint structural damage, were significantly better in the secukinumab groups than in the placebo group. Improvements were sustained through 52 weeks. Infections, including candida, were more common in the secukinumab groups. Throughout the study (mean secukinumab exposure, 438.5 days; mean placebo exposure, 128.5 days), four patients in the secukinumab groups had a stroke (0.6 per 100 patient-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 1.5), and two had a myocardial infarction (0.3 per 100 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0), as compared with no patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS Secukinumab was more effective than placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis, which validates interleukin-17A as a therapeutic target. Infections were more common in the secukinumab groups than in the placebo group. The study was neither large enough nor long enough to evaluate uncommon serious adverse events or the risks associated with long-term use. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01392326.).

Maintenance, reduction, or withdrawal of etanercept after treatment with etanercept and methotrexate in patients with moderate rheumatoid arthritis (PRESERVE): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Clinical remission and low disease activity are essential treatment targets in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Although moderately active rheumatoid arthritis is common, treatment effects in moderate disease have not been well studied. Additionally, optimum use of biologics needs further investigation, including the use of induction, maintenance, and withdrawal treatment strategies. The aim of the PRESERVE trial was to assess whether low disease activity would be sustained with reduced doses or withdrawal of etanercept in patients with moderately active disease. METHODS In a randomised controlled trial, patients aged between 18 and 70 years with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis (disease activity score in 28 joints [DAS28] >3.2 and ≤5.1) despite treatment with methotrexate were enrolled at 80 centres in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia between March 6, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. To be eligible, patients had to have been receiving 15-25 mg of methotrexate every week for at least 8 weeks. In an open-label period of 36 weeks, all patients were given 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate every week. To be eligible for a subsequent double-blind period of 52 weeks, participants had to have achieved sustained low disease activity. These patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive voice-response system to one of three treatment groups: 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were stratified in blocks of three by DAS28 response (low disease activity or remission) at week 36. Patients, investigators, data analysts, and study staff were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with low disease activity at week 88 in the groups given 50 mg etanercept or placebo in the double-blind period. A conditional primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving 25 mg etanercept who achieved low disease activity. Modified intention-to-treat populations were used for analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00565409. FINDINGS 604 (72.4%) of 834 enrolled patients were eligible for the double-blind period, of whom 202 were assigned to 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 202 to 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, and 200 to placebo plus methotrexate. At week 88, 166 (82.6%) of 201 patients who had received at least one dose of 50 mg etanercept and one or more DAS28 evaluations had low disease activity, compared with 84 (42.6%) of 197 who had received placebo (mean difference 40.8%, 95% CI 32.5-49.1%; p<0.0001). Additionally, 159 (79.1%) of 201 patients given 25 mg etanercept had low disease activity at week 88 (mean difference from placebo 35.9%, 27.0-44.8%; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION Conventional or reduced doses of etanercept with methotrexate in patients with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis more effectively maintain low disease activity than does methotrexate alone after withdrawal of etanercept. FUNDING Pfizer.