ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of sarilumab plus conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active moderate‐to‐severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response or intolerance to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) therapy.MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to receive sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks with background conventional synthetic DMARDs. The co‐primary end points were the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20) at week 24, and change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) at week 12. Each sarilumab dose was evaluated against placebo; differences between the 2 sarilumab doses were not assessed.ResultsThe baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were similar. The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was significantly higher with sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo (55.8%, 60.9%, and 33.7%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The mean change from baseline in the HAQ DI score at week 12 was significantly greater for sarilumab (least squares mean change: for 150 mg, −0.46 [P = 0.0007]; for 200 mg, −0.47 [P = 0.0004]) versus placebo (−0.26). Infections were the most frequently reported treatment‐emergent adverse events. Serious infections occurred in 1.1%, 0.6%, and 1.1% of patients receiving placebo, sarilumab 150 mg, and sarilumab 200 mg, respectively. Laboratory abnormalities included decreased absolute neutrophil count and increased transaminase levels in both sarilumab groups compared with placebo. In this study, reductions in the absolute neutrophil count were not associated with an increased incidence of infections or serious infections.ConclusionSarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic DMARDs improved the signs and symptoms of RA and physical function in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to anti‐TNF agents. Safety data were consistent with interleukin‐6 receptor blockade and the known safety profile of sarilumab.

Objective:To analyse associations between the clinical status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the gross domestic product (GDP) of their resident country.Methods:The Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (QUEST–RA) cohort includes clinical and questionnaire data from 6004 patients who were seen in usual care at 70 rheumatology clinics in 25 countries as of April 2008, including 18 European countries. Demographic variables, clinical characteristics, RA disease activity measures, including the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), and treatment-related variables were analysed according to GDP per capita, including 14 “high GDP” countries with GDP per capita greater than US$24 000 and 11 “low GDP” countries with GDP per capita less than US$11 000.Results:Disease activity DAS28 ranged between 3.1 and 6.0 among the 25 countries and was significantly associated with GDP (r  =  −0.78, 95% CI −0.56 to −0.90, r2  =  61%). Disease activity levels differed substantially between “high GDP” and “low GDP” countries at much greater levels than according to whether patients were currently taking or not taking methotrexate, prednisone and/or biological agents.Conclusions:The clinical status of patients with RA was correlated significantly with GDP among 25 mostly European countries according to all disease measures, associated only modestly with the current use of antirheumatic medications. The burden of arthritis appears substantially greater in “low GDP” than in “high GDP” countries. These findings may alert healthcare professionals and designers of health policy towards improving the clinical status of patients with RA in all countries.

ObjectivesThe treat-to-target (T2T) concept has been applied successfully in several inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Gout is a chronic disease with a high burden of pain and inflammation. Because the pathogenesis of gout is strongly related to serum urate levels, gout may be an ideal disease in which to apply a T2T approach. Our aim was to develop international T2T recommendations for patients with gout.MethodsA committee of experts with experience in gout agreed upon potential targets and outcomes, which was the basis for the systematic literature search. Eleven rheumatologists, one cardiologist, one nephrologist, one general practitioner and one patient met in October 2015 to develop T2T recommendations based on the available scientific evidence. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.ResultsAlthough no randomised trial was identified in which a comparison with standard treatment or an evaluation of a T2T approach had been performed in patients with gout, indirect evidence was provided to focus on targets such as normalisation of serum urate levels. The expert group developed four overarching principles and nine T2T recommendations. They considered dissolution of crystals and prevention of flares to be fundamental; patient education, ensuring adherence to medications and monitoring of serum urate levels were also considered to be of major importance.ConclusionsThis is the first application of the T2T approach developed for gout. Since no publication reports a trial comparing treatment strategies for gout, highly credible overarching principles and level D expert recommendations were created and agreed upon.

The objective of this document is to provide a comprehensive update of the recommendations of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology on drug treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on a systematic literature review and on the opinion of a panel of rheumatologists. Four general principles and eleven recommendations were approved. General principles: RA treatment should (1) preferably consist of a multidisciplinary approach coordinated by a rheumatologist, (2) include counseling on lifestyle habits, strict control of comorbidities, and updates of the vaccination record, (3) be based on decisions shared by the patient and the physician after clarification about the disease and the available therapeutic options; (4) the goal is sustained clinical remission or, when this is not feasible, low disease activity. Recommendations: (1) the first line of treatment should be a csDMARD, started as soon as the diagnosis of RA is established; (2) methotrexate (MTX) is the first-choice csDMARD; (3) the combination of two or more csDMARDs, including MTX, may be used as the first line of treatment; (4) after failure of first-line therapy with MTX, the therapeutic strategies include combining MTX with another csDMARD (leflunomide), with two csDMARDs (hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine), or switching MTX for another csDMARD (leflunomide or sulfasalazine) alone; (5) after failure of two schemes with csDMARDs, a bDMARD may be preferably used or, alternatively a tsDMARD, preferably combined, in both cases, with a csDMARD; (6) the different bDMARDs in combination with MTX have similar efficacy, and therefore, the therapeutic choice should take into account the peculiarities of each drug in terms of safety and cost; (7) the combination of a bDMARD and MTX is preferred over the use of a bDMARD alone; (8) in case of failure of an initial treatment scheme with a bDMARD, a scheme with another bDMARD can be used; in cases of failure with a TNFi, a second bDMARD of the same class or with another mechanism of action is effective and safe; (9) tofacitinib can be used to treat RA after failure of bDMARD; (10) corticosteroids, preferably at low doses for the shortest possible time, should be considered during periods of disease activity, and the risk-benefit ratio should also be considered; (11) reducing or spacing out bDMARD doses is possible in patients in sustained remission.

BackgroundAtherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory disease, with interleukin 6 (IL‐6) as a major player in inflammation cascade. IL‐6 blockade may reduce cardiovascular risk, but current treatments to block IL‐6 also induce dyslipidemia, a finding with an uncertain prognosis.Methods and ResultsWe aimed to determine the endothelial function responses to the IL‐6–blocking agent tocilizumab, anti–tumor necrosis factor α, and synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a 16‐week prospective study. Sixty consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis were enrolled. Tocilizumab and anti–tumor necrosis factor α therapy were started in 18 patients each while 24 patients were treated with synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs. Forty patients completed the 16‐week follow‐up period. The main outcome was flow‐mediated dilation percentage variation before and after therapy. In the tocilizumab group, flow‐mediated dilation percentage variation increased statistically significantly from a pre‐treatment mean of (3.43% [95% CI, 1.28–5.58] to 5.96% [95% CI, 3.95–7.97]; P=0.03). Corresponding changes were 4.78% (95% CI, 2.13–7.42) to 6.75% (95% CI, 4.10–9.39) (P=0.09) and 2.87% (95% CI, −2.17 to 7.91) to 4.84% (95% CI, 2.61–7.07) (P=0.21) in the anti–tumor necrosis factor α and the synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug groups, respectively (both not statistically significant). Total cholesterol increased significantly in the tocilizumab group from 197.5 (95% CI, 177.59–217.36) to 232.3 (201.62–263.09) (P=0.003) and in the synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug group from 185.8 (95% CI, 169.76–201.81) to 202.8 (95% CI, 176.81–228.76) (P=0.04), but not in the anti–tumor necrosis factor α group. High‐density lipoprotein did not change significantly in any group.ConclusionsEndothelial function is improved by tocilizumab in a high‐risk population, even as it increases total cholesterol and low‐density lipoprotein levels.