Furst, Daniel E.

Abstract Objectives To determine the efficacy, safety and pharmacodynamics of belumosudil in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) treated with background immunosuppressive therapies. Methods Eligible patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive belumosudil 200 mg once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID), or placebo for 28 weeks (double-blind period). After unblinding, the patients who received belumosudil continued the same dose, whereas the patients who received placebo were re-randomised for one of the belumosudil doses for 24 weeks (open-label extension). Results Thirty-five and 31 patients were treated in the double-blind and open-label periods, respectively. The study was terminated prematurely, and target enrolment was not met. The primary end point, of CRISS score ≥0.60 at week 24, did not exhibit an efficacy signal in the belumosudil vs placebo groups [odds ratio: 1.06 (0.19–5.82; P = 0.9472) for the QD, and 0.39 (0.07–2.35; P = 0.3078) for the BID group]. Belumosudil was well tolerated and exhibited similar safety profiles in both double-blind and open-label periods. Tissue-based RNA sequencing analysis revealed FOXP3 upregulation and STAT3, IL23A and TGF-β downregulation in patients with CRISS score ≥0.60, which supported the mechanism of action of belumosudil. In blood and tissue samples, trends of decreased fibrosis biomarker levels were seen in the belumosudil-treated group vs placebo. Conclusion Efficacy signal for belumosudil could not be detected. Signalling pathway modulation analysis supported the mechanism of action of belumosudil. A trend for decreased fibrosis-related biomarkers was observed in the belumosudil-treated group. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03919799.

ObjectiveTo develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.ResultsThe guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.ConclusionThis RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Objective To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. Conclusion This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.