Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of rituximab in systemic sclerosis (SSc) in clinical practice. Methods We performed a prospective study including patients with SSc from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) network treated with rituximab and matched with untreated patients with SSc. The main outcomes measures were adverse events, skin fibrosis improvement, lung fibrosis worsening and steroids use among propensity score-matched patients treated or not with rituximab. Results 254 patients were treated with rituximab, in 58% for lung and in 32% for skin involvement. After a median follow-up of 2 years, about 70% of the patients had no side effect. Comparison of treated patients with 9575 propensity-score matched patients showed that patients treated with rituximab were more likely to have skin fibrosis improvement (22.7 vs 14.03 events per 100 person-years; OR: 2.79 [1.47–5.32]; p=0.002). Treated patients did not have significantly different rates of decrease in forced vital capacity (FVC)>10% (OR: 1.03 [0.55–1.94]; p=0.93) nor in carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) decrease. Patients having received rituximab were more prone to stop or decrease steroids (OR: 2.34 [1.56–3.53], p<0.0001). Patients treated concomitantly with mycophenolate mofetil had a trend for better outcomes as compared with patients receiving rituximab alone (delta FVC: 5.22 [0.83–9.62]; p=0.019 as compared with controls vs 3 [0.66–5.35]; p=0.012). Conclusion Rituximab use was associated with a good safety profile in this large SSc-cohort. Significant change was observed on skin fibrosis, but not on lung. However, the limitation is the observational design. The potential stabilisation of lung fibrosis by rituximab has to be addressed by a randomised trial.

Objective: CXCL10 (also known as interferon‐γ–inducible 10‐kd protein [IP‐10]) is a chemokine that potentially plays a role in the immunopathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We undertook this phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MDX‐1100, a fully human, anti‐CXCL10 (anti–IP‐10) monoclonal antibody, in RA patients whose disease responded inadequately to methotrexate (MTX).Methods: Patients with active RA receiving stable doses of MTX (10–25 mg weekly) were randomized to receive intravenous doses of 10 mg/kg MDX‐1100 (n = 35) or placebo (n = 35) every other week. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) on day 85, and patients were followed up for safety to day 141.Results: The ACR20 response rate was significantly higher among MDX‐1100–treated patients than among placebo‐treated patients (54% versus 17%; P = 0.0024). Statistically significant differences in the ACR20 response rate between treatments were observed starting on day 43 (P < 0.05). The ACR50 and ACR70 response rates on day 85 did not differ between the groups. Overall, 51.4% of MDX‐1100–treated patients and 30.3% of placebo‐treated patients experienced at least 1 adverse event (AE). No study drug–related serious AEs were reported.Conclusion: MDX‐1100 was well tolerated and demonstrated clinical efficacy in RA patients whose disease responded inadequately to MTX. This is the first study to demonstrate clinical efficacy of a chemokine inhibitor in RA and supports the notion of a potential role of IP‐10 in the immunopathogenesis of RA.

Objective: To assess the determinants of patients' (PTGL) and physicians' (MDGL) global assessment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity and factors associated with discordance among them.Methods: A total of 7,028 patients in the Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA study had PTGL and MDGL assessed at the same clinic visit on a 0–10‐cm visual analog scale (VAS). Three patient groups were defined: concordant rating group (PTGL and MDGL within ±2 cm), higher patient rating group (PTGL exceeding MDGL by >2 cm), and lower patient rating group (PTGL less than MDGL by >2 cm). Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify determinants of PTGL and MDGL and their discordance.Results: The mean ± SD VAS scores for PTGL and MDGL were 4.01 ± 2.70 and 2.91 ± 2.37, respectively. Pain was overwhelmingly the single most important determinant of PTGL, followed by fatigue. In contrast, MDGL was most influenced by swollen joint count (SJC), followed by erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and tender joint count (TJC). A total of 4,454 (63.4%), 2,106 (30%), and 468 (6.6%) patients were in the concordant, higher, and lower patient rating groups, respectively. Odds of higher patient rating increased with higher pain, fatigue, psychological distress, age, and morning stiffness, and decreased with higher SJC, TJC, and ESR. Lower patient rating odds increased with higher SJC, TJC, and ESR, and decreased with lower fatigue levels.Conclusion: Nearly 36% of patients had discordance in RA activity assessment from their physicians. Sensitivity to the “disease experience” of patients, particularly pain and fatigue, is warranted for effective care of RA.

Objectives The rarity of early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) makes randomised controlled trials very difficult. We aimed to use an observational approach to compare effectiveness of currently used treatment approaches. Methods This was a prospective, observational cohort study of early dcSSc (within three years of onset of skin thickening). Clinicians selected one of four protocols for each patient: methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclophosphamide or ‘no immunosuppressant’. Patients were assessed three-monthly for up to 24 months. The primary outcome was the change in modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS). Confounding by indication at baseline was accounted for using inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weights. As a secondary outcome, an IPT-weighted Cox model was used to test for differences in survival. Results Of 326 patients recruited from 50 centres, 65 were prescribed methotrexate, 118 MMF, 87 cyclophosphamide and 56 no immunosuppressant. 276 (84.7%) patients completed 12 and 234 (71.7%) 24 months follow-up (or reached last visit date). There were statistically significant reductions in mRSS at 12 months in all groups: −4.0 (−5.2 to −2.7) units for methotrexate, −4.1 (−5.3 to −2.9) for MMF, −3.3 (−4.9 to −1.7) for cyclophosphamide and −2.2 (−4.0 to −0.3) for no immunosuppressant (p value for between-group differences=0.346). There were no statistically significant differences in survival between protocols before (p=0.389) or after weighting (p=0.440), but survival was poorest in the no immunosuppressant group (84.0%) at 24 months. Conclusions These findings may support using immunosuppressants for early dcSSc but suggest that overall benefit is modest over 12 months and that better treatments are needed. Trial registration number NCT02339441.

Objective To determine which of two referral strategies, when used by referring physicians for patients with chronic back pain (CBP), is superior for diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) by rheumatologists across several countries. Methods Primary care referral sites in 16 countries were randomised (1 : 1) to refer patients with CBP lasting >3 months and onset before age 45 years to a rheumatologist using either strategy 1 (any of inflammatory back pain (IBP), HLA-B27 or sacroiliitis on imaging) or strategy 2 (two of the following: IBP, HLA-B27, sacroiliitis, family history of axial SpA, good response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, extra-articular manifestations). The rheumatologist established the diagnosis. The primary analysis compared the proportion of patients diagnosed with definite axial SpA by referral strategy. Results Patients (N=1072) were referred by 278 sites to 64 rheumatologists: 504 patients by strategy 1 and 568 patients by strategy 2. Axial SpA was diagnosed in 35.6% and 39.8% of patients referred by these respective strategies (between-group difference 4.40%; 95% CI −7.09% to 15.89%; p=0.447). IBP was the most frequently used referral criterion (94.7% of cases), showing high concordance (85.4%) with rheumatologists' assessments, and having sensitivity and a negative predictive value of >85% but a positive predictive value and specificity of <50%. Combining IBP with other criteria (eg, sacroiliitis, HLA-B27) increased the likelihood for diagnosing axial SpA. Conclusions A referral strategy based on three criteria leads to a diagnosis of axial SpA in approximately 35% of patients with CBP and is applicable across countries and geographical locales with presumably different levels of expertise in axial SpA.