BackgroundSince initial approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rituximab has been evaluated in clinical trials involving various populations with RA. Information has also been gathered from registries. This report therefore updates the 2007 consensus document on the use of rituximab in the treatment of RA.MethodsPreparation of this new document involved many international experts experienced in the treatment of RA. Following a meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify all relevant data. Data were then interrogated by a drafting committee, with subsequent review and discussion by a wider expert committee leading to the formulation of an updated consensus statement. These committees also included patients with RA.ResultsThe new statement covers wide-ranging issues including the use of rituximab in earlier RA and impact on structural progression, and aspects particularly pertinent to rituximab such as co-medication, optimal dosage regimens, repeat treatment cycles and how to manage non-response. Biological therapy following rituximab usage is also addressed, and safety concerns including appropriate screening for hepatitis, immunoglobulin levels and infection risk. This consensus statement will support clinicians and inform patients when using B-cell depletion in the management of RA, providing up-to-date information and highlighting areas for further research.ConclusionNew therapeutic strategies and treatment options for RA, a chronic destructive and disabling disease, have expanded over recent years. These have been summarised in general strategic suggestions and specific management recommendations, emphasising the importance of expedient disease-modifying antirheumatic drug implementation and tight disease control. This consensus statement is in line with these fundamental principles of management.

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.

IMPORTANCE Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy need treatment options. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of filgotinib vs placebo on the signs and symptoms of RA in a treatment-refractory population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS 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. INTERVENTIONS Filgotinib, 200 mg (n = 148); filgotinib, 100 mg (n = 153); or placebo (n = 148) once daily; patients continued concomitant stable conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES 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] Յ3.2) 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. RESULTS 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 Ն3 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. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE 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.

BackgroundRheumatic and musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are observed in about 10% of patients with cancer receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Given the recent emergence of these events and the lack of guidance for rheumatologists addressing them, a European League Against Rheumatism task force was convened to harmonise expert opinion regarding their identification and management.MethodsFirst, the group formulated research questions for a systematic literature review. Then, based on literature and using a consensus procedure, 4 overarching principles and 10 points to consider were developed.ResultsThe overarching principles defined the role of rheumatologists in the management of irAEs, highlighting the shared decision-making process between patients, oncologists and rheumatologists. The points to consider inform rheumatologists on the wide spectrum of musculoskeletal irAEs, not fulfilling usual classification criteria of rheumatic diseases, and their differential diagnoses. Early referral and facilitated access to rheumatologist are recommended, to document the target organ inflammation. Regarding therapeutic, three treatment escalations were defined: (1) local/systemic glucocorticoids if symptoms are not controlled by symptomatic treatment, then tapered to the lowest efficient dose, (2) conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in case of inadequate response to glucocorticoids or for steroid sparing and (3) biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, for severe or refractory irAEs. A warning has been made on severe myositis, a life-threatening situation, requiring high dose of glucocorticoids and close monitoring. For patients with pre-existing rheumatic disease, baseline immunosuppressive regimen should be kept at the lowest efficient dose before starting immunotherapies.ConclusionThese statements provide guidance on diagnosis and management of rheumatic irAEs and aim to support future international collaborations.

ESSDAI and ESSPRI had good construct validity. All scores were reliable. Systemic scores had a large sensitivity to change in patients whose disease activity improves. Patient scores had a small sensitivity to change, however, significantly better for ESSPRI. Systemic and patient scores poorly correlated, suggesting that they are 2 complementary components that should be both evaluated, but separately.

Objective To define parameters predictive of lymphoma development in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS). Methods A multicenter case–control survey was performed to identify predictors of lymphoma. Cases were patients who developed lymphoma after diagnosis of primary SS and were mainly recruited through the Club Rhumatismes et Inflammation network. For each case, 2 controls (matched for disease duration and age) were randomly selected among patients with primary SS and without lymphoma. Cases and controls were compared using univariate analysis and then using multivariate analysis to identify independent predictors of lymphoma. Results One hundred one patients with primary SS and lymphoma were included. Eighty‐seven patients were women (86.1%), and the mean ± SD age at lymphoma diagnosis was 57.4 ± 12.6 years. The most frequent histologic type was B cell non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in 99 of 101 patients, with marginal‐zone lymphoma in 76 of the 99 patients (76.8%) including 58 (58.6%) with lymphoma of the mucosa‐associated lymphoid tissue type. Lymphomas were most frequently located in the salivary glands (43 patients). A specific treatment was initiated at diagnosis in 87 patients with B cell NHL, and 61 patients (61.6%) achieved complete sustained remission after the first line of treatment. In the multivariate analysis, salivary gland enlargement, the presence of rheumatoid factor (RF), low C4, cryoglobulinemia, lymphopenia, and disease activity according to the European League Against Rheumatism Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (excluding the lymphoma domain) were found to be predictors of lymphoma. No previous treatment for primary SS was associated with any effect on lymphoma occurrence. Conclusion In addition to previously known factors predictive of lymphoma occurrence, the independent roles of RF and disease activity were demonstrated in this case–control study of primary SS–associated lymphoma. Our findings highlight the roles of chronic antigenic stimulation and disease activity in the development of this severe complication.

This study provides the first evidence of a strong influence of geolocation and ethnicity on the phenotype of primary SjS at diagnosis.

Objective More than 80% of autoimmune disease is female dominant, but the mechanism for this female bias is poorly understood. We suspected an X chromosome dose effect and hypothesized that trisomy X (47,XXX , 1 in ~1,000 live female births) would be increased in female predominant diseases (e.g. systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE], primary Sjögren’s syndrome [SS], primary biliary cirrhosis [PBC] and rheumatoid arthritis [RA]) compared to diseases without female predominance (sarcoidosis) and controls. Methods We identified 47,XXX subjects using aggregate data from single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays and confirmed, when possible, by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) or quantitative polymerase chain reaction (q-PCR). Results We found 47,XXX in seven of 2,826 SLE and three of 1,033 SS female patients, but only in two of the 7,074 female controls (p=0.003, OR=8.78, 95% CI: 1.67-86.79 and p=0.02, OR=10.29, 95% CI: 1.18-123.47; respectively). One 47,XXX subject was present for ~404 SLE women and ~344 SS women. 47,XXX was present in excess among SLE and SS subjects. Conclusion The estimated prevalence of SLE and SS in women with 47,XXX was respectively ~2.5 and ~2.9 times higher than in 46,XX women and ~25 and ~41 times higher than in 46,XY men. No statistically significant increase of 47,XXX was observed in other female-biased diseases (PBC or RA), supporting the idea of multiple pathways to sex bias in autoimmunity.