Browsing by Author "Smolen, Josef S (57211726941)"

Objective To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review was followed by a consensus meeting to develop this update involving 28 international taskforce members in May 2019. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined. Results The updated recommendations comprise 6 overarching principles and 12 recommendations. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA and diversity of both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations; the need for collaborative management and shared decision-making is highlighted. The recommendations provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local glucocorticoid injections are proposed as initial therapy; for patients with arthritis and poor prognostic factors, such as polyarthritis or monoarthritis/oligoarthritis accompanied by factors such as dactylitis or joint damage, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17A or IL-12/23 should be initiated, taking into account skin involvement if relevant. If axial disease predominates, a TNF inhibitor or IL-17A inhibitor should be started as first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is addressed primarily after bDMARD failure. Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition is proposed for patients in whom these other drugs are inappropriate, generally in the context of mild disease. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are addressed. Conclusion These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological management of PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Objective To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review was followed by a consensus meeting to develop this update involving 28 international taskforce members in May 2019. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined. Results The updated recommendations comprise 6 overarching principles and 12 recommendations. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA and diversity of both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations; the need for collaborative management and shared decision-making is highlighted. The recommendations provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local glucocorticoid injections are proposed as initial therapy; for patients with arthritis and poor prognostic factors, such as polyarthritis or monoarthritis/oligoarthritis accompanied by factors such as dactylitis or joint damage, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17A or IL-12/23 should be initiated, taking into account skin involvement if relevant. If axial disease predominates, a TNF inhibitor or IL-17A inhibitor should be started as first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is addressed primarily after bDMARD failure. Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition is proposed for patients in whom these other drugs are inappropriate, generally in the context of mild disease. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are addressed. Conclusion These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological management of PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Objective As part of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network, 20 user-focused standards of care (SoCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) addressing 16 domains of care were developed. This study aimed to explore gaps in implementation of these SoCs across Europe. Methods Two cross-sectional surveys on the importance, level of and barriers (patients only) to implementation of each SoC (0-10, 10 highest) were designed to be conducted among patients and rheumatologists in 50 European countries. Care gaps were calculated as the difference between the actual and maximum possible score for implementation (ie, 10) multiplied by the care importance score, resulting in care gaps (0-100, maximal gap). Factors associated with the problematic care gaps (ie, gap≥30 and importance≥6 and implementation<6) and strong barriers (≥6) were further analysed in multilevel logistic regression models. Results Overall, 26 and 31 countries provided data from 1873 patients and 1131 rheumatologists, respectively. 19 out of 20 SoCs were problematic from the perspectives of more than 20% of patients, while this was true for only 10 SoCs for rheumatologists. Rheumatologists in countries with lower gross domestic product and non-European Union countries were more likely to report problematic gaps in 15 of 20 SoCs, while virtually no differences were observed among patients. Lack of relevance of some SoCs (71%) and limited time of professionals (66%) were the most frequent implementation barriers identified by patients. Conclusions Many problematic gaps were reported across several essential aspects of RA care. More efforts need to be devoted to implementation of EULAR SoCs. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020.

Objective As part of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network, 20 user-focused standards of care (SoCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) addressing 16 domains of care were developed. This study aimed to explore gaps in implementation of these SoCs across Europe. Methods Two cross-sectional surveys on the importance, level of and barriers (patients only) to implementation of each SoC (0-10, 10 highest) were designed to be conducted among patients and rheumatologists in 50 European countries. Care gaps were calculated as the difference between the actual and maximum possible score for implementation (ie, 10) multiplied by the care importance score, resulting in care gaps (0-100, maximal gap). Factors associated with the problematic care gaps (ie, gap≥30 and importance≥6 and implementation<6) and strong barriers (≥6) were further analysed in multilevel logistic regression models. Results Overall, 26 and 31 countries provided data from 1873 patients and 1131 rheumatologists, respectively. 19 out of 20 SoCs were problematic from the perspectives of more than 20% of patients, while this was true for only 10 SoCs for rheumatologists. Rheumatologists in countries with lower gross domestic product and non-European Union countries were more likely to report problematic gaps in 15 of 20 SoCs, while virtually no differences were observed among patients. Lack of relevance of some SoCs (71%) and limited time of professionals (66%) were the most frequent implementation barriers identified by patients. Conclusions Many problematic gaps were reported across several essential aspects of RA care. More efforts need to be devoted to implementation of EULAR SoCs. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020.

Background: Upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1-selective inhibitor, showed efficacy in combination with stable background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to DMARDs. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib monotherapy after switching from methotrexate versus continuing methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Methods: SELECT-MONOTHERAPY was conducted at 138 sites in 24 countries. The study enrolled adults (≥18 years) who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)–European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable methotrexate were randomly assigned 2:2:1:1 to switch to once-daily monotherapy of of upadacitinib or to continue methotrexate at their existing dose as blinded study drug; starting from week 14, patients assigned to continue methotrexate were switched to 15 mg or 30 mg once-daily upadacitinib per prespecified random assignment at baseline. The primary endpoints in this report are proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in the ACR criteria (ACR20) at week 14, and proportion achieving low disease activity defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) of 3·2 or lower, both with non-responder imputation at week 14. Outcomes were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is active but not recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02706951. Findings: Patients were screened between Feb 23, 2016, and May 19, 2017 and 648 were randomly assigned to treatment. 598 (92%) completed week 14. At week 14, an ACR20 response was achieved by 89 (41%) of 216 patients (95% CI 35–48) in the continued methotrexate group, 147 (68%) of 217 patients (62–74) receiving upadacitinib 15 mg, and 153 (71%) of 215 patients (65–77) receiving upadacitinib 30 mg (p<0·0001 for both doses vs continued methotrexate). DAS28(CRP) 3·2 or lower was met by 42 (19%) of 216 (95% CI 14–25) in the continued methotrexate group, 97 (45%) of 217 (38–51) receiving upadacitinib 15 mg, and 114 (53%) of 215 (46–60) receiving upadacitinib 30 mg (p<0·0001 for both doses vs continued methotrexate). Adverse events were reported in 102 patients (47%) on continued methotrexate, 103 (47%) on upadacitinib 15 mg, and 105 (49%) on upadacitinib 30 mg. Herpes zoster was reported by one (<1%) patient on continued methotrexate, three (1%) on upadacitinib 15 mg, and six (3%) on upadacitinib 30 mg. Three malignancies (one [<1%] on continued methotrexate, two [1%] on upadacitinib 15 mg), three adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (one [<1%] on upadacitinib 15 mg, two [<1%] on upadacitinib 30 mg), one adjudicated pulmonary embolism (<1%; upadacitinib 15 mg), and one death (<1%; upadacitinib 15 mg, haemorrhagic stroke [ruptured aneurysm]) were reported in the study. Interpretation: Upadacitinib monotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in clinical and functional outcomes versus continuing methotrexate in this methotrexate inadequate-responder population. Safety observations were similar to those in previous upadacitinib rheumatoid arthritis studies. Funding: AbbVie Inc, USA. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd