ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1-preferential inhibitor filgotinib versus placebo or tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite ongoing treatment with methotrexate (MTX).MethodsThis 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled phase III trial evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in patients with RA randomised 3:3:2:3 to filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) or filgotinib 100 mg (FIL100), subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo (through week 24), all with stable weekly background MTX. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Additional efficacy outcomes were assessed sequentially. Safety was assessed from adverse events and laboratory abnormalities.ResultsThe proportion of patients (n=1755 randomised and treated) achieving ACR20 at week 12 was significantly higher for FIL200 (76.6%) and FIL100 (69.8%) versus placebo (49.9%; treatment difference (95% CI), 26.7% (20.6% to 32.8%) and 19.9% (13.6% to 26.2%), respectively; both p<0.001). Filgotinib was superior to placebo in key secondary endpoints assessing RA signs and symptoms, physical function and structural damage. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab in terms of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C reactive protein ≤3.2 at week 12 (p<0.001); FIL100 did not achieve non-inferiority. Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were comparable among active treatment arms.ConclusionsFilgotinib improved RA signs and symptoms, improved physical function, inhibited radiographic progression and was well tolerated in patients with RA with inadequate response to MTX. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab.Trial registration numberNCT02889796.

The aim of the study was to analyze the relation between sports and bone mass. Seven hundred and four men with no history of chronic disease were questioned on their adolescent and adult sporting activities. Their total body (TB) and regional (head, spine, arms and legs) bone mineral density (BMD) were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD measurements and ratios of regional BMD to TB BMD were compared using a multiple regression analysis. Probands (mean age 30 years) were engaged in 14 sports activities: rugby, soccer, other team sports, endurance running, fighting sports, bodybuilding, multiple weightbearing activities, swimming, swimming with flippers, biking, rowing, climbing, triathlon and multiple mixed activities. They stated that they were practising a physical activity at the amateur level: 7.1 h/week between the ages of 11 and 18 years and 9 h/week between age 18 years and the day of the interview (no significant difference between physical activities). Rowers and swimmers had low TB BMD (1.22 and 1.17 g/cm2) and low leg BMD (1.37 and 1.31 g/cm2). Participants in rugby, soccer, other team sports and fighting sports had a high TB BMD (1.27-1.35 g/cm2) and high leg BMD (1.41-1.5 g/cm2). For head BMD, there was no stastistical difference among the different groups. Constructed ratios pointed out the site-specific adaptation of the skeleton: soccer player and runners had a higher leg ratio; bodybuilders, fighters, climbers and swimmers had a higher arm ratio; rugby players had a higher spine ratio. Head ratio was higher in non-weightbearing sports (rowing, swimming) than in weightbearing sports (rugby, team sports, soccer, fighting sports and bodybuilding). Thus the BMD and ratio differences among the 14 disciplines seem to be site-specific and related to the supposedly high and unusual strains created at certain sites during sport training by muscle stress and gravitational forces. Head ratio is closely related to the type of practice; its value could predict whether sport participants have developed the maximal peak bone mass they could achieve.

ObjectivesTo investigate how the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic influenced decisions of rheumatologists and health professionals in rheumatology regarding the management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsAn English-language questionnaire was developed by a EULAR working group and distributed via national rheumatology societies of EULAR countries, EMEUNET and individual working group members. Responses were collected using an online survey tool. Descriptive statistics were calculated.ResultsWe analysed 1286 responses from 35/45 EULAR countries. Due to containment measures, 82% of respondents indicated cancellation/postponement of face-to-face visits of new patients (84% of them offering remote consultation) and 91% of follow-up visits (96% with remote consultation). The majority of respondents (58%) perceived that the interval between symptom onset and first rheumatological consultations was longer during containment restrictions than before. Treatment decisions were frequently postponed (34%), and the majority (74%) of respondents stated that it was less likely to start a biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)/targeted synthetic DMARD during the pandemic, mainly because of patients’ fear, limited availability of screening procedures and decreased availability of rheumatological services. Use of (hydroxy)chloroquine (HCQ) and tocilizumab (TCZ) for the COVID-19 indication was reported by 47% and 42% of respondents, respectively, leading to a shortage of these drugs for RMDs indications according to 49% and 14% of respondents, respectively.ConclusionMeasures related to containment of COVID-19 pandemic led to a perceived delay between symptom onset and a first rheumatological visit, postponement of treatment decisions, and shortage of HCQ and TCZ, thereby negatively impacting early treatment and treat-to-target strategies.

Since their first use for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the late 1940s, glucocorticoids (GCs) have been representing a substantial part of the therapeutic arsenal for RA. However, even if GCs are still widely prescribed drugs, their toxicity is discussed controversially, so obtaining consensus on their use in RA is difficult. Hence, the most recent European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology recommendations on early arthritis and RA management advocate the use of GCs as adjunct treatment to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, at the lowest dose possible and for the shortest time possible. However, the recommendations remain relatively vague on dose regimens and routes of administration. Here, we describe literature data on which the current recommendations are based as well as data from recent trials published since the drafting of the guidelines. Moreover, we make proposals for daily practice and provide suggestions for studies that could help clarifying the place of GCs in RA management. Indeed, numerous items, including the benefit/risk ratio of low-dose and very low-dose GCs and optimal duration of GCs as bridging therapy, remain on the research agenda, and future studies are needed to guide the next recommendations for RA.