In 802 arthritis patients treated with INX for median >6 years, a nationwide non-medical switch to CT-P13 had no negative impact on disease activity. Adjusted 1-year CT-P13 retention rate was slightly lower than for INX in a historic cohort.

ObjectivesReal-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised.MethodsObservational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted).Results1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months’ preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers’ clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective.ConclusionSeventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects.

Objective To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Design Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. Setting Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. Participants Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. Interventions Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. Results 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval −5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and −0.6% (−10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. Conclusions All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis. Trial registration EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815 .

Intracellular efflux pumps have been largely the research focus in multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms and parasites including cancers. However, drug efflux mechanisms other than pumps per se have been observed, supported by the effects of isomeric, non-antibiotic depressant (DPR), phenothiazines and thixenes, and antidepressant (ADPR) phenylpiperidine neurotropic drugs, alone or in combination with classical antimicrobials on MDR Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Of the non-antibiotics we investigated, the DPR l-thioridazine, trans-clopenthixol and isomers of phenylpiperidines NNC 20-4962 (isomer of femoxetine) and NNC 20-7052 (isomer of paroxetine) were potent antimicrobials with the least neurotropic activity, pointing to a possible general isomeric structure-activity relationship. These compounds may be regarded as new efflux inhibitors. Moreover, these isomers have considerably reduced, in some cases absent, neurotropism and reduced mammalian toxicity. This may alleviate concerns about adverse effects and therapeutic safety for infected patients in life-threatening situations where the non-antibiotic dosage would be in the lower, non-chronic dosage ranges generally prescribed for individuals with mild mental health problems. The results point to the prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms' phospholipid/protein domain involvement of the cationic, amphiphilic, non-antibiotic DPR and ADPR, with the phospholipids being the initial sites attracting and concentrating the neurotropes to induce a form of suspended animation, followed by gross changes of cell wall and membrane structure, and thereby potentiating their destructive or immobilizing effects on various as yet only hinted at resistance and efflux mechanisms. Combination of appropriate isomeric non-antibiotic DPR and ADPR of low neurotropism and toxicity with conventional and classical antimicrobials promises early, new therapeutic strategies salutary against microbial resistance, resistance development, pathogenicity and virulence.

AimsIn Danish patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases to explore self-protection strategies and health behaviour including adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic treatment (DMARD) during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and again after the reopening of the society started. Furthermore, to identify characteristics of patients with high levels of anxiety and self-isolation.MethodsPatients in routine care followed prospectively in the nationwide DANBIO registry were invited to answer an online questionnaire regarding disease activity and COVID-19 infection, behaviour in March and June 2020. Responses were linked to patient data in DANBIO. Characteristics potentially associated with anxiety, self-isolation and medication adherence (gender/age/diagnosis/education/work status/comorbidity/DMARD/smoking/EQ-5D/disease activity) were explored with multivariable logistic regression analyses.ResultsWe included 12 789 patients (8168 rheumatoid arthritis/2068 psoriatic arthritis/1758 axial spondyloarthritis/795 other) of whom 65% were women and 36% treated with biological DMARD. Self-reported COVID-19 prevalence was 0.3%. Patients reported that they were worried to get COVID-19 infection (March/June: 70%/45%) and self-isolated more than others of the same age (48%/38%). The fraction of patients who changed medication due to fear of COVID-19 were 4.1%/0.6%. Female gender, comorbidities, not working, lower education, biological treatment and poor European Quality of life, 5 dimensions were associated with both anxiety and self-isolation.ConclusionIn >12 000 patients with inflammatory arthritis, we found widespread anxiety and self-isolation, but high medication adherence, in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. This persisted during the gradual opening of society during the following months. Attention to patients’ anxiety and self-isolation is important during this and potential future epidemics.