Objectives In 2018, a nationwide mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar adalimumab was conducted in Denmark. The available biosimilar was GP2017 (Hyrimoz) in Eastern regions and SB5 (Imraldi) in Western regions. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of GP2017 versus SB5 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/psoriatic arthritis (PsA)/axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). Methods Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry with geographical cluster pseudo-randomisation, analysed by emulating a randomised clinical trial. Main outcome was adjusted 1-year treatment retention (Cox regression). Furthermore, 6 months’ remission rates (logistic regression), reasons for withdrawal and back-switching to originator were investigated (overall and stratified by indication). Results Overall, of 1570 eligible patients, 1318 switched and were included (467 RA/321 PsA/530 AxSpA); 623 (47%) switched to GP2017, 695 (53%) to SB5. Baseline characteristics of the two clusters were largely similar, but some differences in registration practice were observed. The combined 1-year retention rate for the two biosimilars was 89.5%. Compared with SB5, estimated risk of withdrawal for GP2017 was lower (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 6 months’ remission rate was higher (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.37). Stratified analyses gave similar results (statistically significant for RA). During 1 year, 8.5% and 12.9% withdrew GP2017 and SB5, respectively (primarily lack of effect and adverse events), of whom 48 patients (3.6%) back-switched. Conclusion This head-to-head comparison of GP2017 versus SB5 following a mandatory switch from the originator indicated differences in effectiveness in routine care. This may reflect a true difference, but other explanations, for example, differences in excipients, differences between clusters and residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

Introduction Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are chronic, systemic, inflammatory diseases, primarily in the musculoskeletal system. Pain and fatigue are key symptoms of RA and AS. Treatment presents a clinical challenge for several reasons, including the progressive nature of the diseases and the involvement of multiple pain mechanisms. Moreover, side effects of pain treatment pose an implicit risk. Currently, no well-controlled studies have investigated how medical cannabis affects pain and cognitive functions in RA and AS. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical cannabis in the treatment of persistent pain in patients with RA and AS with low disease activity. Methods and analysis A double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled study of cannabidiol (CBD), followed by an open label add-on of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with collection of clinical data and biological materials in RA and AS patients treated in routine care. The oral treatment with CBD in the experimental group is compared with placebo in a control group for 12 weeks, followed by an observational 12-week period with an open label add-on of THC in the primary CBD non-responders. Disease characteristics, psychological parameters, demographics, comorbidities, lifestyle factors, blood samples and serious adverse events are collected at baseline, after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, and at a follow-up visit at 36 weeks. Data will be analysed in accordance with a predefined statistical analysis plan. Ethics and dissemination The Danish Ethics Committee (S-20170217), the Danish Medicines Agency (S-2018010018) and the Danish Data Protection Agency approved the protocol. The project is registered in the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2017-004226-15). All participants will give written informed consent to participate prior to any study-related procedures. The results will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Background: Inflammation suppresses cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme activity, and single-dose interleukin 6 receptor antagonists (anti-IL-6R) reverse this effect. Here, we assess the impact of continuous anti-IL-6R therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: In a clinical pharmacokinetic trial, the Basel cocktail was administered before and after 3 and 12 weeks of anti-IL-6R therapy to assess CYP enzyme activity (registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identifier NCT04842981) on April 13^th, 2021). In a retrospective study, the 4β-hydroxycholesterol/cholesterol ratio was measured as a biomarker for CYP3A4 activity before and after 3 and 6 months of anti-IL-6R therapy. The control group was patients initiating a tumor necrosis factor alfa (TNF-α) inhibitor. Results: In the clinical pharmacokinetic trial (n = 3), midazolam metabolic ratio (CYP3A4) was inconclusive due to the limited sample size. Midazolam AUC and C_max indicate a weak impact on CYP3A4 activity after 3 weeks of anti-IL-6R therapy compared to baseline (AUC geometric mean ratio (GMR): 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64–0.99 and C_max GMR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37–0.91), which returns to baseline levels after 12 weeks of therapy (AUC GMR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.72–1.46 and C_max GMR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72–1.47). No effect on the 4β-hydroxycholesterol/cholesterol ratio was observed in the retrospective study. Conclusion: Based on sparse data from three patients, continuous anti-IL-6R therapy seems to cause an acute but transient increase in CYP3A4 activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients, which may be due to a normalization of the inflammation-suppressed CYP activity. Further studies are warranted to understand the mechanism behind this putative transient effect. Trial registration Registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identifier NCT04842981) on April 13th, 2021.

Background: Apart from a consistent focus on treating inflammation, patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) report a range of unmet needs. Many experience not only residual symptoms but also various other physical, psychological, and social effects. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a complex Interdisciplinary Nurse-coordinated self-management (INSELMA) intervention for patients with IA, as an add-on treatment to usual outpatient care for those with substantial disease impact. Methods: This study followed the British Medical Research Council’s updated framework for developing complex interventions. The process encompassed the following steps: (1) The evidence base was identified; (2) workshops were held, involving 38 relevant stakeholders (managers, physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers, psychologists from hospitals and municipalities, and two patient research partners), to discuss and further develop the preliminary ideas; (3) relevant theories were identified (i.e., self-efficacy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and health literacy); (4) the intervention was modeled and remodeled and (5) the results, describing the final INSELMA intervention and outcomes. Results: The INSELMA intervention encompasses an initial biopsychosocial assessment, which is performed by a rheumatology nurse. Then, activities that the participant wishes to improve are identified and goals are set. The nurse refers the participant to a multidisciplinary team and coordinates their support and relevant services in the participant’s municipality. In addition, the health professionals have the opportunity to hold two interdisciplinary conferences during the intervention period. The participant and the health professionals work to achieve the set goals during a 6-month period, which ends with a status assessment and a discussion of further needs. The INSELMA intervention aims to increase self-management, reduce the impact of IA (e.g., pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and absenteeism), and increase self-efficacy, quality of life, mental well-being, work ability, and physical activity. Conclusions: The development of the INSELMA intervention involved stakeholders from two Danish rheumatology outpatient clinics, patient research partners and municipalities. We believe that we have identified important mechanisms to increase the self-management and quality of life of people with IA and to decrease the disease impact in those who are substantially affected. The health professionals involved have developed competences in delivering the intervention and it is ready to be tested in a feasibility study.

Background/Purpose : In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, whether patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (RMD) treated with conventional (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs) exhibit an adequate immune response to the currently available SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations remains a major concern. There is an urgent need for more SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy data to inform healthcare providers on the potential need for a booster vaccine. We established the ‘Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Danish Inflammatory Rheumatic Outpatients’ study (DECODIR) in March 2021 in order to assess and compare the immunoglobulin G (IgG response) of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer, Groton, CT, USA/BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) and mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna, Cambridge, MA, USA) administered as part of the national vaccine roll out in patients with RMDs, irrespective of treatment. Patients’ SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was used as proxy to determine vaccination response. Methods: The study is a longitudinal prospective cohort study in which the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response was measured and compared at baseline and at six weeks following vaccination. The study population consisted of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthropathies (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving their outpatient treatment at the Danish Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Sonderborg. Bloods, patient reported outcome measurements (PROMS), clinical data, and treatment information (cs/bDMARD) were collected at baseline/6 weeks and documented in the Danish DANBIO registry. Commercially available antibody tests (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) were used, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were reported in EliA U/mL. Sufficient IgG response was defined as ≥10 EliA U/mL (manufacturers cut-off). Associations between antibody response, age, gender, disease (RA/PsA/SpA), no treatment or cs/bDMARD treatment, and disease activity were tested using proportional odds regression and bootstrapped tests of medians. Results were reported using mean, median (IqR), and bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI) of the median. Results: A total of 243 patients were included. We observed a significant increase in IgG levels (median of <0.7 EliA U/mL at baseline versus 34.5 EliA U/mL at 6 weeks). Seventy-two patients (32%) had an insufficient IgG response. The median IgG level in patients treated with cs/bDMARD combination therapy was significantly lower compared to patients without any DMARD treatment (12 EliA U/mL vs. 92 EilA U/mL (p < 0.01)). Conclusion: Patients treated with a combination of cs/bDMARD are at significantly higher risk of an inadequate response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as measured by IgG level compared to patients without DMARD treatment. IgG SARS-CoV-2 are only part of the immune response, and further data are urgently needed. At present, our results may inform healthcare providers and policy makers on the decision for the need of a booster vaccine in this particular patient group.