Objective To compare the effectiveness of a strategy administering baricitinib versus one using TNF-inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) failure in a real-life treat-to-target (T2T) setting. Methods Patients with biological and targeted synthetic DMARD (b/tsDMARD) naïve RA with disease duration ≤5 years without contraindications to b/tsDMARD were randomised to either TNFi or baricitinib when csDMARD failed to achieve disease control in a T2T setting. Changes in clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at 12-week intervals for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority, with testing for superiority if non-inferiority is demonstrated, of baricitinib strategy in the number of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) response at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included 28-joint count Disease Activity Score with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2.6, changes in PROMs and radiographic progression. Results A total of 199 patients (TNFi, n=102; baricitinib, n=97) were studied. Both study groups were similar. Baricitinib was both non-inferior and superior in achieving ACR50 response at week 12 (42% vs 20%). Moreover, 75% of baricitinib patients achieved DAS28-CRP <2.6 at week 12 compared with 46% of TNFi patients. On secondary outcomes throughout the duration of the study, the baricitinib strategy demonstrated comparable or better outcomes than TNFi strategy. Although not powered for safety, no unexpected safety signals were seen in this relatively small group of patients. Conclusion Up to present, in a T2T setting, patients with RA failing csDMARDs have two main strategies to consider, Janus Kinases inhibitor versus bDMARDs (in clinical practice, predominantly TNFi). The PERFECTRA study suggested that starting with baricitinib was superior over TNFi in achieving response at 12 weeks and resulted in improved outcomes across all studied clinical measures and PROMs throughout the study duration in these patients.

Background: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. However, the full benefits of DMARDs are often not realized because many patients are sub-optimally adherent to their medication. In order to optimize adherence, it is essential that healthcare professionals (HCPs) understand patients’ barriers and facilitators for medication use. Insight in these barriers and facilitators may foster the dialogue about adequate medication use between HCPs and patients. What HCPs perceive as barriers and facilitators has, so far, scarcely been investigated. This study aimed to identify the perceptions of HCPs on patients’ barriers and facilitators that might influence their adherence. Methods: This qualitative study was performed using semi structured in-depth interviews with HCPs. An interview guide was used, based on an adjusted version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Thematic analysis was conducted to identify factors that influence barriers and facilitators to DMARD use according to HCPs. Results: Fifteen HCPs (5 rheumatologists, 5 nurses and 5 pharmacists) were interviewed. They mentioned a variety of factors that, according to their perceptions, influence DMARD adherence in patients with RA. Besides therapy-related factors, such as (onset of) medication effectiveness and side-effects, most variation was found within patient-related factors and reflected patients’ beliefs, ways of coping, and (self-management) skills toward medication and their condition. In addition, factors related to the condition (e.g., level of disease activity), healthcare team and system (e.g., trust in HCP), and social and economic context (e.g. support, work shifts) were reported. Conclusions: This study provided insights in HCPs’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to DMARD use patients with RA. Most factors that were mentioned were patient-related and potentially modifiable. When physicians understand patients’ perceptions on medication use, adherence to DMARDs can probably be optimized in patients with RA leading to more effectiveness of treatment outcomes.

Background/Objective: Fatigue is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the relative impact of pain and disease activity on improvements in fatigue in 2 phase 3 baricitinib clinical trials. Methods: RA-BEAM (NCT01710358) and RA-BEACON (NCT01721044) were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with moderate to severe RA. RA-BEAM assessed baricitinib + methotrexate (MTX) and adalimumab + MTX in patients with prior inadequate response/intolerance (IR) to MTX (MTX-IR). RA-BEACON assessed patients with IR to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD-IR). Measures included the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Fatigue scale, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) for RA, and pain visual analog scale (VAS). Analyses were implemented separately for each study. Results: Significant improvements were seen in disease activity and pain, which were greater with baricitinib versus adalimumab. A statistically significant improvement was seen in fatigue with both active treatments versus placebo. Moderate correlations were observed between improvements in disease activity and fatigue and between improvements in pain and fatigue in both MTX-IR and bDMARD-IR patients. Reductions in pain (≥50%) and remission or low disease activity (CDAI ≤10) had significant associations with fatigue improvement at week 24. In mediation analysis, improvements in fatigue attributable to CDAI and pain VAS in MTX-IR patients were 31% and 52%, respectively, for baricitinib, and 30% and 47%, respectively, for adalimumab. In bDMARD-IR patients, improvement in fatigue was attributed 48% to CDAI and 48% to pain VAS. Conclusions: In both MTX-IR and bDMARD-IR patients, a large proportion of improvements in fatigue across treatment arms were accounted for by improvements in pain and disease activity.

Gout management strategies remain a topic of debate, particularly regarding the efficacy of treat-to-target (T2T) and treat-to-avoid-symptoms (T2S) approaches. T2T, endorsed by major rheumatology societies, involves systematic serum urate (sUA) monitoring and urate-lowering therapy (ULT) dose escalation to maintain sUA below a predefined threshold. In contrast, T2S, which focuses on symptom relief rather than routine sUA monitoring, is supported by alternative guidelines. Despite the widespread adoption of T2T in other chronic diseases, its clinical benefits beyond biochemical parameters, such as serum urate reduction, remain uncertain in gout. This study evaluates current evidence on T2T and T2S, analyzing data from a pragmatic multicenter trial comparing both strategies. Findings suggest that while T2T is effective in reducing sUA levels, its superiority in preventing flares and improving patient-reported outcomes remains inconclusive. Some studies report reduced tophus burden and better adherence with T2T, whereas others find negligible differences in pain relief and functional improvement between the two strategies. The lack of high-quality comparative trials underscores the need for further investigation. Future research should prioritize long-term, patient-centered outcomes and pragmatic implementation strategies.