Background:Methotrexate (MTX) is often used as first-line therapy for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) despite limited efficacy and data on appropriate dosage. Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) is suggested as an optimal treat-to-target outcome. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have demonstrated improved outcomes (including MDA rates) over MTX. However, more data are needed to define the optimal timing of bDMARD initiation and characterize efficacy of MTX dose escalation, to achieve optimal outcomes.Objectives:To compare achievement of MDA between adding adalimumab (ADA) vs escalating MTX dose in PsA pts with inadequate disease control after initial MTX therapy.Methods:The open-label, 2-part CONTROL study enrolled bDMARD-naive adult pts with active PsA (not in MDA at screening and ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints) despite MTX 15 mg every wk (ew) for ≥4 wks. Pts were randomized to ADA 40 mg every other wk + MTX 15 mg (ADA+MTX) or escalated MTX to 20–25 mg ew or highest tolerable dose during 16-wk part 1 (Fig 1). The primary endpoint was achievement of MDA, defined as fulfilling ≥5 of the 7 criteria: tender joint count 68 (TJC68) ≤1, swollen joint count 66 (SJC66) ≤1, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) ≤1 or body surface area (BSA) ≤3%, pt’s pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] 0–100) ≤15, Pt’s Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA) VAS ≤20, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤0.5 and tender entheseal points (0–8) ≤1. Key secondary efficacy endpoints were achievement of ACR20 and PASI75 and change from baseline in HAQ-DI and Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) at wk 16.Results:Overall, 246 pts were randomized; 245 received treatment (ADA+MTX, n=123; escalated MTX, n=122); 117 (95%) pts and 110 (90%) pts, respectively, completed part 1. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (Table). During part 1, the average dose of MTX was 21.8 mg/wk (55% on oral MTX) in the escalated MTX group. Significantly higher proportion of pts in ADA+MTX (42%) vs escalated MTX (13%) group achieved MDA at wk 16 (non-responder imputation [NRI]; difference [95% CI] 28% [18%–39%];P<0.001;Fig 2). Observed case analysis confirmed the NRI analysis. Lower MDA rates at wk 16 were observed in the escalated MTX arm regardless of prior MTX duration (Fig 2). Significant improvements in key secondary endpoints were also observed with ADA+MTX vs escalated MTX (allP<0.05;Fig 2). In part 1, the proportion of patients with adverse events was similar between groups (ADA+MTX, 62% vs escalated MTX, 57%); no opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, malignancies, or deaths were reported during part 1.Conclusion:A significantly higher proportion of pts achieved MDA at wk 16 after introducing ADA compared with escalating MTX dose; higher rates were observed regardless of prior MTX duration. Significantly higher responses in musculoskeletal, skin, and quality of life measures were observed with ADA+MTX vs escalated MTX. No new safety signals with ADA were identified in this pt population.Table 1.Baseline DemographicsCharacteristics, mean (SD)ADA+MTXn=123Escalated MTXn=122Female, n (%)64 (52.0)59 (48.4)Age, y51.4 (12.2)48.8 (12.7)BSA >3%, n (%)74 (60.2)78 (63.9)Pt pain63.7 (19.5)62.3 (20.9)PtGA65.0 (19.9)62.9 (20.9)HAQ-DI1.2 (0.6)1.2 (0.7)LEI + plantar count3.5 (2.1)3.5 (2.1)Disclosure of Interests:Laura C Coates: None declared, William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Maria Antonietta D’Agostino Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Proton Rahman Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Consultant of: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Lilly and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai, Philip G Conaghan Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Liang Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Mudra Kapoor Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

No abstract

Objectives To develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of imaging in the clinical management of both axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis. Methods The task force comprised an expert group of 21 rheumatologists, radiologists and methodologists from 11 countries. Twelve key questions on the role of imaging in SpA were generated using a process of discussion and consensus. Imaging modalities included conventional radiography (CR), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed-, positron emission- and single photon emission computed tomography, dual-emission x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and scintigraphy. Experts used research evidence obtained from a systematic literature review using MEDLINE and EMBASE to develop a set of 10 recommendations. The strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed by the group members using a visual analogue scale. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results A total of 7550 references were identified in the search process, from which 157 studies were included in the systematic review. Ten recommendations were produced encompassing the role of imaging in making a diagnosis of axial SpA or peripheral SpA, monitoring inflammation and damage, predicting outcome, response to treatment, and detecting spinal fractures and osteoporosis (OP). The SOR for each proposition varied, but was generally very high (mean 8.9-9.5). Selected aspects of the recommendations are given below (NOT all recommendations and NOT the exact wording, due to space constraints): CR of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is recommended as the first imaging method to diagnose sacroiliitis as part of axial SpA, while MRI is an alternative first imaging method in certain cases. US or MRI may be used to detect peripheral arthritis, tenosynovitis, bursitis and particularly peripheral enthesitis, which may support the diagnosis of SpA. MRI of the SIJ and/or spine may be used to assess and monitor disease activity, while CR of the SIJ and/or spine may be used for long-term monitoring of structural damage, particularly new bone formation in axial SpA. In patients with AS (not nonradiographic axial SpA), initial CRs of the lumbar and cervical spine are recommended to detect syndesmophytes, which are predictive of development of new syndesmophytes. MRI (vertebral corner inflammatory lesion) may also be used to predict development of new radiographic syndesmophytes. When spinal fracture in axial SpA is suspected, CR is the recommended initial imaging method. In axial SpA without radiographic syndesmophytes in the lumbar spine, OP should be assessed by hip and AP-spine DXA. Conclusions Ten recommendations for the role of imaging in the clinical management of SpA were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion. Disclosure of Interest P. Mandl: None declared, V. Navarro-Compán: None declared, L. Terslev: None declared, P. Aegerter: None declared, D. van der Heijde: None declared, M.-A. d'Agostino: None declared, X. Baraliakos: None declared, S. Juhl Pede...

No abstract

Background:The interferon (IFN) pathway is a complex system with multiple proteins and diverse downstream effects on gene and protein expression. IFNs have been implicated in multiple RMDs. Despite significant potential, IFN assays have not progressed into clinical practice.Objectives:To perform a SLR on IFN assays in RMDs and propose a consensus terminology.Methods:OvidMedline, Embase and Web of Science were searched for reports of IFN and RMDs up to October 2019. Information about the properties of assays measuring type I IFN and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. Terminology was agreed through an interactive consensus process with reference to the existing evidence.Results:10037 abstracts were identified. 275 fulfilled eligibility criteria, and were used for data extraction. Some used more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 275 papers generated data on 393 methods. There was great heterogeneity in the methods used and presentation of results. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), Plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). All papers fulfilled Face Validity. Due to lack of gold standard for IFN-I pathway activation, evidence of criterion validity was variable. Concurrent validity was presented for n=150 assays. The terminology used to describe aspects of type I IFN pathway activation was not consistent, so a consensus terminology for IFN research (Table 1) was proposed by the taskforce.Table 1.Consensus terminologyTermAbbreviationDefinitionInterferonIFNProteins with anti-viral activity; IFNs are mediators of an anti-viral response. They belong to the Type I, Type II and Type III IFN families.Type I interferonIFN-IThe IFNs alpha, beta, omega, kappa, epsilon, secreted by any nucleated cell, and binding to the IFNAR, which is expressed on any nucleated cell.Type II interferonIFN-IIIFN gamma, mostly secreted by T cells, binding to the IFNGR, which is expressed on most leucocytes.Type III interferonIFN-IIIIFN lambda, which are structurally more similar to IL-10 but share downstream signalling and gene expression with IFN-I.Interferon-stimulated genesISGsGenes whose expression is known to be upregulated by any kind of IFN. Individual ISGs may not exclusively represent Type I IFN pathway activation.Type I Interferon pathway activationAny evidence for function of the components of the Type I IFN pathway. This includes: secretion of a Type I IFN protein, binding to the IFNAR, initiation of JAK/STAT signalling pathways, expression of IFN-stimulated genes, expression of IFN-stimulated proteins.Type I interferon pathway assayAn assay measuring one or more components of the Type I IFN pathway at a molecular or functional level.Interferon stimulated gene expression signatureA qualitative description of coordinated expression of a set of ISGs that is indicative of Type I IFN pathway activation.Interferon stimulated gene expression scoreA quantitative variable derived from expression of a defined set of ISGs that is indicative of Type I IFN pathway activation.Interferon stimulated protein scoreA variable derived from expression of a defined set of soluble biomarkers known to be upregulated by IFN, although not specific for Type I IFN.InterferonopathyMonogenic diseases in which there is constitutive Type I IFN pathway activation with a causal role in pathology. The clinical picture may resemble rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. However, most diseases with IFN pathway activation are not Interferonopathies.Conclusion:Diverse methods have been reported as IFN assays and these differ in what elements of type IFN-I pathway activation they measure. The taskforce consensus terminology on type I IFN reporting should be considered for research and clinical applications.Disclosure of Interests:Agata Burska: None declared, Javier Rodriguez Carrio: None declared, Philip G Conaghan: None declared, Willem A Dik: None declared, Robert Biesen: None declared, Maija-leena Eloranta: None declared, Giulio Cavalli: None declared, Marianne Visser: None declared, Dimitrios Boumpas: None declared, George Bertsias: None declared, Marie Wahren-Herlenius: None declared, Jan Rehwinkel: None declared, Marie-Louise Frémond: None declared, Mary K. Crow Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Lilly, Shannon Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Lars Ronnblom Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Edward Vital Speakers bureau: GSK, Consultant of: AURINIA, SANDOZ, GSK, AstraZeneca, Roche, Modus, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Marjan Versnel: None declared