A greater reduction in radiographic progression after initial combination therapy with ADA and MTX was seen at week 48, even after discontinuation of ADA treatment at week 24. This sustained effect was not found at the primary endpoint (DAS28 reduction).

BackgroundBiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used in second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are administered parenterally. However, so-called targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) – developed more recently – offer alternative (ie, oral) administration forms in second-line treatment. Since bDMARDs and tsDMARDs can be regarded as equal in terms of efficacy, the present study examines whether such characteristics as route of administration drive RA patients’ treatment choice. This may ultimately suggest superiority of some second-line DMARDs over equally effective options, at least according to RA-patient preferences.ObjectiveThe current study assessed the importance of oral administration among other treatment characteristics differing between available second-line DMARDs for RA patients’ preferences using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE).Materials and methodsThe DCE involved scenarios of three hypothetical treatment options in a d-efficient design with varying levels of key attributes (route and frequency of administration, time till onset of drug effect, combination therapy, possible side effects), as defined by focus groups. Further patient characteristics were recorded by an accompanying questionnaire. In the DCE, patients were asked to choose best and worst options (best–worst scaling). Results were analyzed by count analysis and adjusted regression analysis.ResultsA total of 1,588 subjects completed the DCE and were eligible for final analyses. Across all characteristics included in the DCE, “oral administration” was most desired and “intravenous infusion” was most strongly rejected. This was followed by “no combination with methotrexate” being strongly preferred and “intake every 1–2 weeks” being strongly rejected. On average, levels of route of administration showed strongest influences on patients’ decisions in post hoc bootstrapping analysis.ConclusionAccording to the results, an oral DMARD that does not have to be combined with methotrexate and is not administered (only) every 1–2 weeks appears a highly favorable treatment option for patients with RA. DMARDs meeting these preferences may increase compliance and adherence in RA treatment.

Poor health behavior is widespread in patients with all major psychiatric diagnoses. Interventions to reduce risk behavior and strengthen health preventive lifestyles are necessary.

The German Society of Rheumatology approved new German guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of RA published in 2010. An update of the EULAR systematic literature research was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Meta-analyses, controlled trials, cohort studies, and registry data addressing traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids, and treatment strategies published between January 2009 and August 2011 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated and compared the additional data that had been published after the time limit set by the EULAR recommendations. A national guideline working group developed an adapted set of recommendations. The new German guidelines were accepted by vote using an informal Delphi approach. Twelve recommendations and the resulting updated treatment algorithm were developed and approved as a practical orientation for rheumatologists. These recommendations are based on a successive treatment with traditional and biologic disease-modifying drugs depending on the individual progress of the disease and distinct patient characteristics. The German guidelines have been developed on the basis of the internationally well-recognized EULAR recommendations. In addition, more recent evidence from a systematic literature research was considered. They have been developed and approved by a group of national experts aiming at guidance for rheumatologists to reach best medical practice.

The new guidelines set up recommendations for RA treatment in accordance with the treat-to-target principle. Modern disease-modifying drugs, now including also JAK inhibitors, are available in an algorithm.

BackgroundMethotrexate (MTX) remains the anchor drug in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, but is poorly tolerated or contraindicated in some patients. There is a wealth of data supporting the use of abatacept in combination with MTX, but data on alternative conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) combinations with abatacept are scarce.MethodsIn this post-hoc exploratory analysis, efficacy and safety data were extracted from abatacept RA studies in which combination with csDMARDs other than MTX was permitted: three interventional trials (ATTAIN, ASSURE, and ARRIVE) and one real-world study (ACTION). Patients with moderate-to-severe RA received abatacept in combination with MTX, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, azathioprine, or leflunomide for 6 months to 2 years according to the study design. Change from baseline in physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire—Disability Index (HAQ-DI); all studies) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (C-reactive protein) (DAS28 (CRP); ATTAIN, ARRIVE, and ACTION), American College of Rheumatology response rates (ATTAIN), and safety were assessed for individual and pooled csDMARD combinations for each trial. A meta-analysis was also performed on pooled data for HAQ-DI and DAS28 (CRP) across interventional trials.ResultsAcross all four studies, 731 patients received abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD (hydroxychloroquine n = 152; sulfasalazine n = 123; azathioprine n = 59; and leflunomide n = 397) and 2382 patients received abatacept plus MTX. Mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI scores for abatacept plus MTX (all csDMARDs pooled) vs abatacept plus a non-MTX csDMARD were –0.54 vs –0.44 (ATTAIN), –0.43 vs –0.43 (ASSURE), and –0.39 vs –0.36 (ARRIVE). Mean changes from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) and ACR response rates were also similar with abatacept plus MTX or non-MTX csDMARDs. Data for individual non-MTX csDMARDs (pooled across studies) and real-world data were consistent with these findings. Rates of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events, respectively, for abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD vs abatacept plus MTX were 35.7% vs 41.7% and 2.4% vs 2.3% (ATTAIN), 58.0% vs 55.9% and 4.2% vs 1.7% (ASSURE), and 38.1% vs 44.3% and 0.6% vs 2.9% (ARRIVE).ConclusionsAbatacept in combination with non-MTX csDMARDs is clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, providing similar benefits to those seen with abatacept plus MTX.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048581. Registered 2 November 2002.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048932. Registered 11 November 2002.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00124982. Registered 30 June 2005.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02109666. Registered 8 April 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-017-1488-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Despite recommendations suggesting that biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) should be used in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), up to one-third of patients with RA are treated with monotherapy. The objective of the systematic literature review reported here was to evaluate the clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy in the treatment of RA. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Central Trials Register (to April 11, 2017) and the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism conference proceedings (2010–2016) were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy for RA in adults. Forty-four monotherapy studies of abatacept, adalimumab, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, sarilumab, sirukumab, tocilizumab, and tofacitinib reported in 71 publications were identified. Tocilizumab had the most studies (14), followed by etanercept (10) and adalimumab (9). These b/tsDMARDs were consistently shown to be efficacious treatments, regardless of whether patients were intolerant of or had never used conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. However, better treatment outcomes were usually achieved with combination therapy, and this was observed for all b/tsDMARDs assessed by this review. Only a few studies provided a head-to-head comparison between b/tsDMARD treatments or between b/tsDMARD monotherapy and combination therapy, and as many were initial RA treatments they were not generalizable to usual care. In conclusion, evidence from randomized trials suggests that the b/tsDMARDs studied are effective as monotherapy. In general, some patient responses seem better with combination therapy and the durability of monotherapy is less than combination therapy. There is, however, a need for longer-term head-to-head trials to establish positioning of these interventions in the treatment algorithm for RA.Funding: Pfizer.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available on the journal website.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0757-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The TNF inhibitor golimumab (GLM) is a treatment option in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The GO-NICE study assessed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients newly treated with monthly GLM 50 mg subcutaneously (SC) under real-life conditions in Germany. A prospective non-interventional study with 24-month observation per patient was conducted at 158 sites. Available for analysis were 1,458 patients, 474 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA: 54.9 ± 13.4 years, 72.8% females, 60.4% biologic-naïve), 501 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA: 50.5 ± 12.1 years, 54.1% females; 47.5% biologic-naïve), and 483 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS: 43.6 ± 12.3 years, 66.5% males; 58.4% biologic-naïve). A total of 664 patients completed follow-up to month 24. An improvement of QoL by EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L was seen after 6 months and was maintained over 24 months. The patients’ health state today (EQ visual analog scale) improved statistically significantly (p < 0.0001 vs. BL) from 51.0 at baseline (BL) to 63.4 (RA), from 48.4 to 64.3 (PsA) and from 46.8 to 66.5 (AS). Functional ability (FFbH) improved significantly (p < 0.003 vs. BL) from BL 68.2 to 76.1 points (RA), from 69.0 to 76.8 points (PsA), and from 69.0 to 78.5 points (AS). The mean FACIT-Fatigue score increased significantly (p < 0.0001 vs. BL) from BL 32.4 to 38.3 points (RA), from 30.0 to 35.9 points (PsA), and from 29.9 to 37.9 points after 24 months (AS); p < 0.0001 vs. BL each. On treatment with GLM SC once monthly, significant improvements in patient-reported QoL parameters were noted in a very similar manner in all three diseases.Trial registration ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01313858. Registered March 14, 2011; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01313858.