Background:Certolizumab pegol is a PEGylated tumour necrosis factor inhibitor.Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol versus placebo, plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods:An international, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in active adult-onset RA. Patients (n = 619) were randomised 2:2:1 to subcutaneous certolizumab pegol (liquid formulation) 400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4 followed by 200 mg or 400 mg plus MTX, or placebo plus MTX, every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary end point was ACR20 response at week 24. Secondary end points included ACR50 and ACR70 responses, change from baseline in modified Total Sharp Score, ACR core set variables and physical function.Results:Significantly more patients in the certolizumab pegol 200 mg and 400 mg groups achieved an ACR20 response versus placebo (p⩽0.001); rates were 57.3%, 57.6% and 8.7%, respectively. Certolizumab pegol 200 and 400 mg also significantly inhibited radiographic progression; mean changes from baseline in mTSS at week 24 were 0.2 and −0.4, respectively, versus 1.2 for placebo (rank analysis p⩽0.01). Certolizumab pegol-treated patients reported rapid and significant improvements in physical function versus placebo; mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI at week 24 were −0.50 and −0.50, respectively, versus −0.14 for placebo (p⩽0.001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with low incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events. Five patients developed tuberculosis.Conclusion:Certolizumab pegol plus MTX was more efficacious than placebo plus MTX, rapidly and significantly improving signs and symptoms of RA and physical function and inhibiting radiographic progression.Trial registration number:NCT00175877

ObjectivesTo provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field.MethodsAn international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item.ResultsThe task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3–6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

ObjectivesTo describe the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in people with inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (I-RMD).MethodsPhysician-reported registry of I-RMD and non-inflammatory RMD (NI-RMDs) patients vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. From 5 February 2021 to 27 July 2021, we collected data on demographics, vaccination, RMD diagnosis, disease activity, immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive treatments, flares, adverse events (AEs) and SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Data were analysed descriptively.ResultsThe study included 5121 participants from 30 countries, 90% with I-RMDs (n=4604, 68% female, mean age 60.5 years) and 10% with NI-RMDs (n=517, 77% female, mean age 71.4). Inflammatory joint diseases (58%), connective tissue diseases (18%) and vasculitis (12%) were the most frequent diagnostic groups; 54% received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), 42% biological DMARDs and 35% immunosuppressants. Most patients received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (70%), 17% AstraZeneca/Oxford and 8% Moderna. In fully vaccinated cases, breakthrough infections were reported in 0.7% of I-RMD patients and 1.1% of NI-RMD patients. I-RMD flares were reported in 4.4% of cases (0.6% severe), 1.5% resulting in medication changes. AEs were reported in 37% of cases (37% I-RMD, 40% NI-RMD), serious AEs in 0.5% (0.4% I-RMD, 1.9% NI-RMD).ConclusionThe safety profiles of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with I-RMD was reassuring and comparable with patients with NI-RMDs. The majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of I-RMD flare and very rare reports of serious AEs. These findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients and promote confidence in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety in I-RMD patients.

IntroductionWe used the data of the German biologics register RABBIT, a nationwide prospective cohort study, to investigate the risk of new or recurrent malignancy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving biologics compared to conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).MethodsThe analysis was based on patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT at the start of a biologic or conventional DMARD therapy between 01 May 2001 and 31 December 2006. Incidences of first or recurrent malignancies were analysed separately. A nested case-control design was used to investigate the risk of developing a first malignancy. Matching criteria were: age, gender, follow-up time, disease activity score based on 28 joint counts (DAS28) at study entry, smoking status, and selected chronic co-morbid conditions (obstructive or other lung disease, kidney, liver or gastrointestinal disease, psoriasis).ResultsA prior malignancy was reported in 122 out of 5,120 patients. Fifty-eight of these patients had received anti-TNFα agents, 9 anakinra, and 55 conventional DMARDs at study entry. In 14 patients (ever exposed to anti-TNFα: eight, to anakinra: one) 15 recurrent cancers were observed. The average time period since the onset of the first malignancy was nine years. Crude recurrence rates per 1,000 patient-years (pyrs) were 45.5 for patients exposed to anti-TNFα agents, 32.3 for anakinra patients and 31.4 for patients exposed to DMARDs only (Incidence rate ratio anti-TNFα vs. DMARD = 1.4, P = 0.6.). In patients without prior cancer, 74 patients (70% female, mean age: 61.3) developed a first malignancy during the observation. This corresponds to an incidence rate (IR) of 6.0/1,000 pyrs. Forty-four of these patients were ever exposed to anti-TNFα treatment (IR = 5.1/1,000 pyrs). In a nested case-control study comparing cancer patients to cancer-free controls, 44 of the cancer patients and 44 of the cancer-free controls were ever exposed to anti-TNFα agents (P = 1.0).ConclusionsNo significant differences in the overall incidence of malignancies in patients exposed or unexposed to anti-TNFα or anakinra treatment were found. The same applied to the risk of recurrent malignancies. However, in particular this last finding needs further validation in larger data sets.

The first EULAR provisional recommendations on the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), largely based on expert opinion, were published in June 2020. Since then, an unprecedented number of clinical studies have accrued in the literature. Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been approved for population-wide vaccination programmes in EULAR-affiliated countries. Studies regarding vaccination of patients with (inflammatory) RMDs have released their first results or are underway.EULAR found it opportune to carefully review to what extent the initially consensus expert recommendations stood the test of time, by challenging them with the recently accumulated body of scientific evidence, and by incorporating evidence-based advice on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. EULAR started a formal (first) update in January 2021, performed a systematic literature review according to EULAR’s standard operating procedures and completed a set of updated overarching principles and recommendations in July 2021. Two points to consider were added in November 2021, because of recent developments pertaining to additional vaccination doses.

ObjectiveTo report long-term safety from the completed extension trial of baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsTreatment-emergent adverse events are summarised from an integrated database (9 phase III/II/Ib and 1 long-term extension) of patients who received any baricitinib dose (All-bari-RA). Standardised incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC)) and standardised mortality ratio (SMR) were estimated. Additional analysis was done in a subset of patients who had ever taken 2 mg or 4 mg baricitinib.Results3770 patients received baricitinib (14 744 patient-years of exposure (PYE)). All-bari-RA incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years at risk were 2.6, 3.0 and 0.5 for serious infections, herpes zoster and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), respectively. In patients aged ≥50 with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, the IR for MACE was 0.77 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.04). The IR for malignancy (excluding NMSC) during the first 48 weeks was 0.6 and remained stable thereafter (IR 1.0). The SIR for malignancies excluding NMSC was 1.07 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.26) and the SMR was 0.74 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). All-bari-RA IRs for deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE), DVT and PE were 0.5 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), 0.4 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.35), respectively. No clear dose differences were noted for exposure-adjusted IRs (per 100 PYE) for deaths, serious infections, DVT/PE and MACE.ConclusionsIn this integrated analysis including long-term data of baricitinib from 3770 patients (median 4.6 years, up to 9.3 years) with active RA, baricitinib maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses. No new safety signals were identified.Trial registration numberNCT01185353, NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01710358, NCT02265705, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359 and NCT01885078.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term safety profile for upadacitinib across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and atopic dermatitis (AD).MethodsSafety data from clinical trials of upadacitinib 15 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg (AD only) for treating RA, PsA, AS and AD as of 30 June 2021 were analysed; some RA and PsA studies included adalimumab and methotrexate as active comparators. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were presented by disease as exposure-adjusted event rates per 100 patient years (E/100 PY).ResultsThe analysis included 6991 patients (RA, n=3209; PsA, n=907; AS, n=182; AD, n=2693) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib, representing 15 425 PY of exposure (maximum duration 2.75–5.45 years) across diseases. Rates (E/100 PY) of any TEAE (205.5–278.1) and TEAE leading to discontinuation (4.5–5.4) were similar across diseases; serious TEAEs were numerically higher in patients with RA and PsA. Rates of herpes zoster (1.6–3.6), non-melanoma skin cancer (0–0.8) and elevations in creatine phosphokinase levels (4.4–7.9) were higher with upadacitinib than with active comparators in the RA and PsA populations. Deaths (0–0.8), serious infections (0–3.9), major adverse cardiovascular events (0–0.4), venous thromboembolism (<0.1–0.4) and malignancies (0.3–1.4) were observed, with rates generally lowest in AS and AD. Increased rates of acne were observed in patients with AD only.ConclusionsFindings from this analysis demonstrate that upadacitinib is generally well tolerated with observed differences in safety profiles likely reflective of varying patient characteristics across RA, PsA, AS and AD populations.Trial registration numbersNCT02675426,NCT02706951,NCT02706847,NCT02629159,NCT02706873,NCT03086343,NCT03104374,NCT03104400,NCT03178487,NCT03569293,NCT03568318andNCT03607422.

ObjectiveTo study the effect of methotrexate (MTX) and its discontinuation on the humoral immune response after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD).MethodsIn this retrospective study, neutralising SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were measured after second vaccination in 64 patients with AIRD on MTX therapy, 31 of whom temporarily paused medication without a fixed regimen. The control group consisted of 21 patients with AIRD without immunosuppressive medication.ResultsPatients on MTX showed a significantly lower mean antibody response compared with patients with AIRD without immunosuppressive therapy (71.8% vs 92.4%, p<0.001). For patients taking MTX, age correlated negatively with immune response (r=−0.49; p<0.001). All nine patients with antibody levels below the cut-off were older than 60 years. Patients who held MTX during at least one vaccination showed significantly higher mean neutralising antibody levels after second vaccination, compared with patients who continued MTX therapy during both vaccinations (83.1% vs 61.2%, p=0.001). This effect was particularly pronounced in patients older than 60 years (80.8% vs 51.9%, p=0.001). The impact of the time period after vaccination was greater than of the time before vaccination with the critical cut-off being 10 days.ConclusionMTX reduces the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in an age-dependent manner. Our data further suggest that holding MTX for at least 10 days after vaccination significantly improves the antibody response in patients over 60 years of age.