ObjectivesTo provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.MethodsAn international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.ResultsThe task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

BackgroundReaching 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.ObjectiveTo update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

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 placebotreated 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.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00847613.

Clinical and laboratory manifestations and outcome of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) may vary in different populations. A prospective multinational inception cohort should prove useful in identifying the influence of ethnicity on the clinical characteristics of SLE. We therefore analyzed clinical, laboratory, and prognostic variables in Latin American SLE patients with disease of recent onset who were entered into a prospective cohort, and compared these variables in the cohort's 3 major ethnic groups. Thirty-four centers from 9 Latin American countries participated by randomly incorporating SLE patients within 2 years of diagnosis into a standardized database. Participating centers were selected for their expertise in diagnosing and managing SLE. We were then able to evaluate prospectively socioeconomic variables, ethnicity, type of medical care, clinical and laboratory features, disease activity, damage, and mortality at each site. A coordinating center controlled the quality of the information submitted. Of the 1,214 SLE patients included in the cohort, 537 were mestizos, 507 were white, and 152 were African-Latin American (ALA). (There were also small numbers of pure Amerindian and oriental individuals.) Significant differences were found between them in socioeconomic characteristics, type of care, and level of education favoring whites. Mestizos and ALA were younger at onset. Delay to diagnosis and disease duration was shorter in ALA. Fever was more frequent in whites; discoid lesions in ALA; renal disease and lymphopenia in mestizos and ALA. Although we found differences in background variables between ethnic groups from different countries, mestizos from 2 distant countries (Argentina and Mexico) were clinically akin and showed similar differences to whites. Mortality was associated with lower education, poor medical coverage, and shorter follow-up. In an exploratory model nonwhite ethnicity was associated with renal disease and lymphopenia, damage, and cumulative American College of Rheumatology criteria. These differences in clinical, prognostic, socioeconomic, educational, and access to medical care features in Latin American lupus patients of 3 major ethnic groups from 9 different countries may have an impact on the patients' disease. "Hispanics," as they have come to be generically termed on the basis of language, actually constitute a markedly heterogeneous group of subjects.

Objective. To determine whether there is familial aggregation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or other autoimmune diseases in SLE patients and to identify clinical differences between patients with and those without familial autoimmunity.Methods. We interviewed members of the Grupo Latinoamericano de Estudio del Lupus Eritematoso (GLADEL) inception cohort of 1,214 SLE patients to ascertain whether they had relatives with SLE and/or other autoimmune diseases. Identified relatives were studied. Familial aggregation was tested using reported highest and intermediate population prevalence data for SLE, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or all autoimmune diseases, and studies were performed to identify the genetic model applicable for SLE.Results. We identified 116 first-, second-, or thirddegree relatives with SLE, 79 with RA, 23 with autoimmune thyroiditis, 3 with scleroderma, 1 with polymyositis, and 16 with other autoimmune diseases, related to 166 of the 1,177 SLE patients in the GLADEL cohort who agreed to participate. Forty-two SLE patients had 2 or more relatives with an autoimmune disease. We found a sibling of 5.8 and 29.0 for SLE and of 3.2-5.3 for RA, when comparing with their reported high or intermediate population prevalence, respectively. We also found familial aggregation for autoimmune disease in general ( sibling ‫؍‬ 1.5) and determined that for SLE, a polygenic additive genetic model, rather than a multiplicative one, is applicable.Conclusion. In SLE there is familial aggregation of SLE, RA, and autoimmune disease in general. A polygenic additive model applies for SLE. American Indian-white Mestizo SLE patients and those with higher socioeconomic level were more likely to have familial autoimmunity.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the risk of opportunistic infections (OIs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.MethodsPhase II, III and long-term extension clinical trial data (April 2013 data-cut) from the tofacitinib RA programme were reviewed. OIs defined a priori included mycobacterial and fungal infections, multidermatomal herpes zoster and other viral infections associated with immunosuppression. For OIs, we calculated crude incidence rates (IRs; per 100 patient-years (95% CI)); for tuberculosis (TB) specifically, we calculated rates stratified by patient enrolment region according to background TB IR (per 100 patient-years): low (≤0.01), medium (>0.01 to ≤0.05) and high (>0.05).ResultsWe identified 60 OIs among 5671 subjects; all occurred among tofacitinib-treated patients. TB (crude IR 0.21, 95% CI of (0.14 to 0.30)) was the most common OI (n=26); median time between drug start and diagnosis was 64 weeks (range 15–161 weeks). Twenty-one cases (81%) occurred in countries with high background TB IR, and the rate varied with regional background TB IR: low 0.02 (0.003 to 0.15), medium 0.08 (0.03 to 0.21) and high 0.75 (0.49 to 1.15). In Phase III studies, 263 patients diagnosed with latent TB infection were treated with isoniazid and tofacitinib concurrently; none developed TB. For OIs other than TB, 34 events were reported (crude IR 0.25 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.36)).ConclusionsWithin the global tofacitinib RA development programme, TB was the most common OI reported but was rare in regions of low and medium TB incidence. Patients who screen positive for latent TB can be treated with isoniazid during tofacitinib therapy.

Objective. To determine whether LJP 394 delays or prevents renal flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and a history of renal disease.Methods. In a 76-week, double-blind, placebocontrolled study, 230 SLE patients were randomized to receive 16 weekly doses of 100 mg of LJP 394 or placebo, followed by alternating 8-week drug holidays and 12 weekly doses of 50 mg of LJP 394 or placebo. An assay measuring the affinity of the serum IgG fraction for the DNA epitope of LJP 394 identified a high-affinity population of patients (189 of 213 patients; 89% taking LJP 394 and 90% taking placebo). Analyses were performed on both the intent-to-treat population and the high-affinity population.Results. Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies decreased and C3 levels tended to increase during treatment with LJP 394. In the intent-to-treat population, the time to renal flare was not significantly different between treatment groups, but patients taking LJP 394 had a longer time to institution of high-dose corticosteroids and/or cyclophosphamide (HDCC) and required 41% fewer treatments with HDCC. In the highaffinity population, the LJP 394 group experienced a longer time to renal flare, 67% fewer renal flares, longer time to institution of HDCC, and 62% fewer HDCC treatments compared with the placebo group. In patients with serum creatinine levels >1.5 mg/dl at study entry, those taking LJP 394 had 50% fewer renal flares; no renal flares were observed in the high-affinity group taking LJP 394. Serious adverse events were observed in 25 of the 114 LJP 394-treated patients (21.9%) and 34 of the 116 placebo-treated patients (29.3%). Conclusion. Treatment with LJP 394 in patientsSupported in part by La

The prevalence of MSK pain in our study was 25.5%. Geographic variations in the prevalence of MSK pain and specific diagnoses suggested a role for geographic factors in the prevalence of rheumatic diseases.