Key clinical point: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) effectively improved sleep quality and reduced fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The total Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and total Fatigue Severity Scale mean score decreased significantly from 11.37 to 4.97 and 6.48 to 2.15 (both P = .001), respectively, in the PMR intervention group. However, no significant difference was observed among patients in the control group.

Study details: This was a randomized controlled study of 72 patients with RA who were categorized into the PMR intervention group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 37).

Disclosures: The Fırat University Rectorate Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided funding to this research. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Kılıç N et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 Sep 26. doi: 10.1111/ijn.13015.

Key clinical point: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) effectively improved sleep quality and reduced fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The total Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and total Fatigue Severity Scale mean score decreased significantly from 11.37 to 4.97 and 6.48 to 2.15 (both P = .001), respectively, in the PMR intervention group. However, no significant difference was observed among patients in the control group.

Study details: This was a randomized controlled study of 72 patients with RA who were categorized into the PMR intervention group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 37).

Disclosures: The Fırat University Rectorate Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided funding to this research. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Kılıç N et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 Sep 26. doi: 10.1111/ijn.13015.

Key clinical point: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) effectively improved sleep quality and reduced fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The total Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and total Fatigue Severity Scale mean score decreased significantly from 11.37 to 4.97 and 6.48 to 2.15 (both P = .001), respectively, in the PMR intervention group. However, no significant difference was observed among patients in the control group.

Study details: This was a randomized controlled study of 72 patients with RA who were categorized into the PMR intervention group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 37).

Disclosures: The Fırat University Rectorate Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided funding to this research. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Kılıç N et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 Sep 26. doi: 10.1111/ijn.13015.

Key clinical point: A greater proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initially treated with oral baricitinib maintained lower levels of radiographic progression over 5 years than those initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or placebo.

Major finding: At 5 years, no radiographic progression was achieved by a greater proportion of DMARD-naive patients with initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib (59.0%) and initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib + methotrexate (66.2%) vs. those with initial methotrexate treatment (40.7%). Similarly, a greater proportion of patients with inadequate response to methotrexate with initial baricitinib treatment (54.8%) or adalimumab treatment (55.0%) achieved no progression vs. those with initial placebo treatment (50.3%).

Study details: Findings are from a long-term extension RA-BEYOND trial, which included 2,125 patients with active adult-onset RA who completed any 1 of RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, or RA-BUILD phase 3 trials.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company supported this study. The authors declared receiving grant/research support and consulting/speaker’s fees from various sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors reported being current or former employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: van der Heijde D et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210346.

Key clinical point: A greater proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initially treated with oral baricitinib maintained lower levels of radiographic progression over 5 years than those initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or placebo.

Major finding: At 5 years, no radiographic progression was achieved by a greater proportion of DMARD-naive patients with initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib (59.0%) and initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib + methotrexate (66.2%) vs. those with initial methotrexate treatment (40.7%). Similarly, a greater proportion of patients with inadequate response to methotrexate with initial baricitinib treatment (54.8%) or adalimumab treatment (55.0%) achieved no progression vs. those with initial placebo treatment (50.3%).

Study details: Findings are from a long-term extension RA-BEYOND trial, which included 2,125 patients with active adult-onset RA who completed any 1 of RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, or RA-BUILD phase 3 trials.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company supported this study. The authors declared receiving grant/research support and consulting/speaker’s fees from various sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors reported being current or former employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: van der Heijde D et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210346.

Key clinical point: A greater proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initially treated with oral baricitinib maintained lower levels of radiographic progression over 5 years than those initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or placebo.

Major finding: At 5 years, no radiographic progression was achieved by a greater proportion of DMARD-naive patients with initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib (59.0%) and initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib + methotrexate (66.2%) vs. those with initial methotrexate treatment (40.7%). Similarly, a greater proportion of patients with inadequate response to methotrexate with initial baricitinib treatment (54.8%) or adalimumab treatment (55.0%) achieved no progression vs. those with initial placebo treatment (50.3%).

Study details: Findings are from a long-term extension RA-BEYOND trial, which included 2,125 patients with active adult-onset RA who completed any 1 of RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, or RA-BUILD phase 3 trials.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company supported this study. The authors declared receiving grant/research support and consulting/speaker’s fees from various sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors reported being current or former employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: van der Heijde D et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210346.

Key clinical point: Premenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a significantly higher risk for diastolic dysfunction, and early screening may help prevent future cardiovascular events.

Major finding: Patients with RA had a significantly higher incidence of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; P = .020), with the risk being higher in women aged between 30 and 49 years vs. control participants of the same age (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85).

Study details: This study involved 61 premenopausal women with RA without any history of hypertension matched with 107 control participants.

Disclosures: No funding or financial conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kim GH et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 24);23:247. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02629-1.

Key clinical point: Premenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a significantly higher risk for diastolic dysfunction, and early screening may help prevent future cardiovascular events.

Major finding: Patients with RA had a significantly higher incidence of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; P = .020), with the risk being higher in women aged between 30 and 49 years vs. control participants of the same age (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85).

Study details: This study involved 61 premenopausal women with RA without any history of hypertension matched with 107 control participants.

Disclosures: No funding or financial conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kim GH et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 24);23:247. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02629-1.

Key clinical point: Premenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a significantly higher risk for diastolic dysfunction, and early screening may help prevent future cardiovascular events.

Major finding: Patients with RA had a significantly higher incidence of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; P = .020), with the risk being higher in women aged between 30 and 49 years vs. control participants of the same age (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85).

Study details: This study involved 61 premenopausal women with RA without any history of hypertension matched with 107 control participants.

Disclosures: No funding or financial conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kim GH et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 24);23:247. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02629-1.

Key clinical point: Sarilumab monotherapy was as effective as its combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Hence, it could be a suitable alternative in patients with contraindications or intolerance to methotrexate.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, sarilumab vs. sarilumab + methotrexate groups had comparable least square mean change from baseline with overlapping confidence intervals for Clinical Disease Activity Index (−28.79 vs. −26.21), 28-joint Disease Activity using C-reactive protein (−2.95 vs. −2.81), and pain visual analog scale (−33.62 vs. −31.66).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of 184 patients with RA who received sarilumab in the MONARCH trial and 399 patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate, who received a combination of sarilumab and methotrexate in the MOBILITY trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi provided funding for this study. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants/research support, consultancy, speaker’s fees, and consultancy fees or honoraria from various sources. A Praestgaard and HV Hoogstraten reported being employees of Sanofi and may hold stock or stock options in the company.

Source: Burmester GR et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab676.

Key clinical point: Sarilumab monotherapy was as effective as its combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Hence, it could be a suitable alternative in patients with contraindications or intolerance to methotrexate.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, sarilumab vs. sarilumab + methotrexate groups had comparable least square mean change from baseline with overlapping confidence intervals for Clinical Disease Activity Index (−28.79 vs. −26.21), 28-joint Disease Activity using C-reactive protein (−2.95 vs. −2.81), and pain visual analog scale (−33.62 vs. −31.66).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of 184 patients with RA who received sarilumab in the MONARCH trial and 399 patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate, who received a combination of sarilumab and methotrexate in the MOBILITY trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi provided funding for this study. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants/research support, consultancy, speaker’s fees, and consultancy fees or honoraria from various sources. A Praestgaard and HV Hoogstraten reported being employees of Sanofi and may hold stock or stock options in the company.

Source: Burmester GR et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab676.

Key clinical point: Sarilumab monotherapy was as effective as its combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Hence, it could be a suitable alternative in patients with contraindications or intolerance to methotrexate.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, sarilumab vs. sarilumab + methotrexate groups had comparable least square mean change from baseline with overlapping confidence intervals for Clinical Disease Activity Index (−28.79 vs. −26.21), 28-joint Disease Activity using C-reactive protein (−2.95 vs. −2.81), and pain visual analog scale (−33.62 vs. −31.66).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of 184 patients with RA who received sarilumab in the MONARCH trial and 399 patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate, who received a combination of sarilumab and methotrexate in the MOBILITY trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi provided funding for this study. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants/research support, consultancy, speaker’s fees, and consultancy fees or honoraria from various sources. A Praestgaard and HV Hoogstraten reported being employees of Sanofi and may hold stock or stock options in the company.

Source: Burmester GR et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab676.

Key clinical point: Exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) did not seem to be associated with an elevated risk for recurrent or new cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a history of cancer.

Major finding: The risk for recurrent or new cancer was not significantly higher in patients with RA receiving bDMARDs (relative risk [RR], 1.09; P = .31), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (RR 1.11; P = .45), or rituximab (RR 0.79; P = .49) vs. those not receiving bDMARDs.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 observational studies involving patients with RA who had a history of cancer and received bDMARDs.

Disclosures: No specific funding was received for this study. The authors declared receiving honoraria or grants from various sources.

Source: Wetzman A et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Sep 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24784.

Key clinical point: Exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) did not seem to be associated with an elevated risk for recurrent or new cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a history of cancer.

Major finding: The risk for recurrent or new cancer was not significantly higher in patients with RA receiving bDMARDs (relative risk [RR], 1.09; P = .31), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (RR 1.11; P = .45), or rituximab (RR 0.79; P = .49) vs. those not receiving bDMARDs.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 observational studies involving patients with RA who had a history of cancer and received bDMARDs.

Disclosures: No specific funding was received for this study. The authors declared receiving honoraria or grants from various sources.

Source: Wetzman A et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Sep 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24784.

Key clinical point: Exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) did not seem to be associated with an elevated risk for recurrent or new cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a history of cancer.

Major finding: The risk for recurrent or new cancer was not significantly higher in patients with RA receiving bDMARDs (relative risk [RR], 1.09; P = .31), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (RR 1.11; P = .45), or rituximab (RR 0.79; P = .49) vs. those not receiving bDMARDs.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 observational studies involving patients with RA who had a history of cancer and received bDMARDs.

Disclosures: No specific funding was received for this study. The authors declared receiving honoraria or grants from various sources.

Source: Wetzman A et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Sep 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24784.

Key clinical point: Discontinuation of denosumab after 1 year of treatment showed a return to baseline lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving glucocorticoids.

Major finding: By 12 months after discontinuation, TH BMD reduced to levels similar to or slightly above placebo in patients receiving 60 mg (P = .210) and 180 mg denosumab (P = .706). Similar reversal of gains was observed for LS BMD with the least-square percent mean change from baseline in placebo, 60 mg, and 180 mg denosumab, being 2.30% (95% CI −0.35%-4.94%), 1.31% (95% CI −1.17%-3.79%), and 0.12% (95% CI −2.45%-2.68%), respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study including 82 patients with RA receiving glucocorticoids, randomly assigned to placebo, 60 mg, or 180 mg denosumab every 6 months for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Some of the authors declared ties with various sources including Amgen. MT McDermott, RK Stad, L Chen, and S Huang declared being employees of Amgen.

Source: Saag KG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/art.41981.

Key clinical point: Discontinuation of denosumab after 1 year of treatment showed a return to baseline lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving glucocorticoids.

Major finding: By 12 months after discontinuation, TH BMD reduced to levels similar to or slightly above placebo in patients receiving 60 mg (P = .210) and 180 mg denosumab (P = .706). Similar reversal of gains was observed for LS BMD with the least-square percent mean change from baseline in placebo, 60 mg, and 180 mg denosumab, being 2.30% (95% CI −0.35%-4.94%), 1.31% (95% CI −1.17%-3.79%), and 0.12% (95% CI −2.45%-2.68%), respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study including 82 patients with RA receiving glucocorticoids, randomly assigned to placebo, 60 mg, or 180 mg denosumab every 6 months for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Some of the authors declared ties with various sources including Amgen. MT McDermott, RK Stad, L Chen, and S Huang declared being employees of Amgen.

Source: Saag KG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/art.41981.

Key clinical point: Discontinuation of denosumab after 1 year of treatment showed a return to baseline lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving glucocorticoids.

Major finding: By 12 months after discontinuation, TH BMD reduced to levels similar to or slightly above placebo in patients receiving 60 mg (P = .210) and 180 mg denosumab (P = .706). Similar reversal of gains was observed for LS BMD with the least-square percent mean change from baseline in placebo, 60 mg, and 180 mg denosumab, being 2.30% (95% CI −0.35%-4.94%), 1.31% (95% CI −1.17%-3.79%), and 0.12% (95% CI −2.45%-2.68%), respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study including 82 patients with RA receiving glucocorticoids, randomly assigned to placebo, 60 mg, or 180 mg denosumab every 6 months for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Some of the authors declared ties with various sources including Amgen. MT McDermott, RK Stad, L Chen, and S Huang declared being employees of Amgen.

Source: Saag KG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/art.41981.

Key clinical point: Despite higher initial disease activity, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) vs. conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) had a lower incidence of total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR).

Major finding: The incidence of TKR (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.62-0.83) and THR (IRR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.93) was significantly lower in patients receiving biologics vs. those who received csDMARDs, with TKR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.81) and THR (aHR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40-0.98) risk being lowest in patients with regular bDMARD use.

Study details: This was a nationwide retrospective study involving 48,165 patients with RA. Patients receiving biologics without undergoing TKR (n = 5,979) or THR (n = 6,245) formed the biologic cohort matched with control cohorts comprising 11,958 and 12,490 patients receiving csDMARDs, respectively.

Disclosures: No specific funding or conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Chang YS et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab671.

Key clinical point: Despite higher initial disease activity, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) vs. conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) had a lower incidence of total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR).

Major finding: The incidence of TKR (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.62-0.83) and THR (IRR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.93) was significantly lower in patients receiving biologics vs. those who received csDMARDs, with TKR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.81) and THR (aHR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40-0.98) risk being lowest in patients with regular bDMARD use.

Study details: This was a nationwide retrospective study involving 48,165 patients with RA. Patients receiving biologics without undergoing TKR (n = 5,979) or THR (n = 6,245) formed the biologic cohort matched with control cohorts comprising 11,958 and 12,490 patients receiving csDMARDs, respectively.

Disclosures: No specific funding or conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Chang YS et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab671.

Key clinical point: Despite higher initial disease activity, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) vs. conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) had a lower incidence of total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR).

Major finding: The incidence of TKR (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.62-0.83) and THR (IRR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.93) was significantly lower in patients receiving biologics vs. those who received csDMARDs, with TKR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.81) and THR (aHR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40-0.98) risk being lowest in patients with regular bDMARD use.

Study details: This was a nationwide retrospective study involving 48,165 patients with RA. Patients receiving biologics without undergoing TKR (n = 5,979) or THR (n = 6,245) formed the biologic cohort matched with control cohorts comprising 11,958 and 12,490 patients receiving csDMARDs, respectively.

Disclosures: No specific funding or conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Chang YS et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab671.

Key clinical point: After adjustment for hyperlipidemia, the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was not higher among statin users than nonusers.

Major finding: After adjusting for hyperlipidemia, the risk of developing RA was not higher among former users of statins (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.10) and was slightly lower among current users (aOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.93) than nonusers.

Study details: This was a nationwide case-control study of 16,363 patients with RA and a similar number of matched control participants.

Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the National Institute on Aging funded this work. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Peterson MN et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 18):23:244. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02617-5.

Key clinical point: After adjustment for hyperlipidemia, the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was not higher among statin users than nonusers.

Major finding: After adjusting for hyperlipidemia, the risk of developing RA was not higher among former users of statins (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.10) and was slightly lower among current users (aOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.93) than nonusers.

Study details: This was a nationwide case-control study of 16,363 patients with RA and a similar number of matched control participants.

Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the National Institute on Aging funded this work. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Peterson MN et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 18):23:244. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02617-5.

Key clinical point: After adjustment for hyperlipidemia, the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was not higher among statin users than nonusers.

Major finding: After adjusting for hyperlipidemia, the risk of developing RA was not higher among former users of statins (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.10) and was slightly lower among current users (aOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.93) than nonusers.

Study details: This was a nationwide case-control study of 16,363 patients with RA and a similar number of matched control participants.

Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the National Institute on Aging funded this work. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Peterson MN et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 18):23:244. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02617-5.

Key clinical point: A switch from adalimumab (ADL), sourced from the European Union (ADL-EU), to ADL biosimilar PF-06410293 (ADL-PF) had no effect on long-term treatment efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate was sustained and similar in patients maintained on ADL-PF and those who switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at weeks 26 and 52 (52 weeks: 88.4%, 88.2%, and 87.6%, respectively; 78 weeks: 83.4%, 85.8%, and 84.3%, respectively). From weeks 52-78, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 42.6%, 37.0%, and 50.8% for the biosimilar, week 26 switch, and week 52 switch groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 597 patients with RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate who continued ADL-PF treatment throughout 78 weeks or switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52 in the phase 3 REFLECTIONS B538-02 trial.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Five authors reported being employees and shareholders of Pfizer, and two reported receiving grants/support and consulting fees from several sources.

Source: Fleischmann RM. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02626-4.

Key clinical point: A switch from adalimumab (ADL), sourced from the European Union (ADL-EU), to ADL biosimilar PF-06410293 (ADL-PF) had no effect on long-term treatment efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate was sustained and similar in patients maintained on ADL-PF and those who switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at weeks 26 and 52 (52 weeks: 88.4%, 88.2%, and 87.6%, respectively; 78 weeks: 83.4%, 85.8%, and 84.3%, respectively). From weeks 52-78, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 42.6%, 37.0%, and 50.8% for the biosimilar, week 26 switch, and week 52 switch groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 597 patients with RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate who continued ADL-PF treatment throughout 78 weeks or switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52 in the phase 3 REFLECTIONS B538-02 trial.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Five authors reported being employees and shareholders of Pfizer, and two reported receiving grants/support and consulting fees from several sources.

Source: Fleischmann RM. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02626-4.

Key clinical point: A switch from adalimumab (ADL), sourced from the European Union (ADL-EU), to ADL biosimilar PF-06410293 (ADL-PF) had no effect on long-term treatment efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate was sustained and similar in patients maintained on ADL-PF and those who switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at weeks 26 and 52 (52 weeks: 88.4%, 88.2%, and 87.6%, respectively; 78 weeks: 83.4%, 85.8%, and 84.3%, respectively). From weeks 52-78, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 42.6%, 37.0%, and 50.8% for the biosimilar, week 26 switch, and week 52 switch groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 597 patients with RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate who continued ADL-PF treatment throughout 78 weeks or switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52 in the phase 3 REFLECTIONS B538-02 trial.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Five authors reported being employees and shareholders of Pfizer, and two reported receiving grants/support and consulting fees from several sources.

Source: Fleischmann RM. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02626-4.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of low lean mass and sarcopenic obesity was significantly higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than the general reference population.

Major finding: Patients with RA compared to reference populations from NHANES and HealthABC had a greater prevalence of low lean mass (14.2% vs. 10.0% and 7.0%, respectively; all P < .001) and sarcopenic obesity (12.6% vs. 4.5% and 4.0%, respectively; all P < .001), with both associated with worse Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, suggesting worse disability (P < .001).

Study details: The findings came from the analysis of 113, 190, and 141 patients with RA from the University of Pennsylvania, Events in RA study, and University of San Francisco cohorts, respectively, compared with reference populations from NHANES and HealthABC.

Disclosures: This work was supported by a VA Clinical Science Research and Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Research Center, among others. JF Bater declared receiving consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Pfizer.

Source: Baker JF et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 24. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab710.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of low lean mass and sarcopenic obesity was significantly higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than the general reference population.

Major finding: Patients with RA compared to reference populations from NHANES and HealthABC had a greater prevalence of low lean mass (14.2% vs. 10.0% and 7.0%, respectively; all P < .001) and sarcopenic obesity (12.6% vs. 4.5% and 4.0%, respectively; all P < .001), with both associated with worse Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, suggesting worse disability (P < .001).

Study details: The findings came from the analysis of 113, 190, and 141 patients with RA from the University of Pennsylvania, Events in RA study, and University of San Francisco cohorts, respectively, compared with reference populations from NHANES and HealthABC.

Disclosures: This work was supported by a VA Clinical Science Research and Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Research Center, among others. JF Bater declared receiving consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Pfizer.

Source: Baker JF et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 24. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab710.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of low lean mass and sarcopenic obesity was significantly higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than the general reference population.

Major finding: Patients with RA compared to reference populations from NHANES and HealthABC had a greater prevalence of low lean mass (14.2% vs. 10.0% and 7.0%, respectively; all P < .001) and sarcopenic obesity (12.6% vs. 4.5% and 4.0%, respectively; all P < .001), with both associated with worse Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, suggesting worse disability (P < .001).

Study details: The findings came from the analysis of 113, 190, and 141 patients with RA from the University of Pennsylvania, Events in RA study, and University of San Francisco cohorts, respectively, compared with reference populations from NHANES and HealthABC.

Disclosures: This work was supported by a VA Clinical Science Research and Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Research Center, among others. JF Bater declared receiving consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Pfizer.

Source: Baker JF et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 24. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab710.