Joint Estimation of Remission and Response for Methotrexate-Based DMARD Options in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Bivariate Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

To jointly estimate American College of Rheumatology (ACR50) response (a more commonly reported outcome) and remission (a more clinically relevant outcome) for methotrexate (MTX)‐based treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

We conducted a bivariate network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare MTX monotherapy and MTX‐based conventional and biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations for RA. The correlation between the outcomes was derived from an incident RA cohort study, whereas the treatment effects were derived from randomized trials in the network of evidence. The analyses were conducted separately for MTX‐naïve and MTX–inadequate response (IR) populations in a Bayesian framework with uninformative priors.

Results

From the cohort study, the correlation between ACR50 response and Disease Activity Score 28 remission at 6 months was moderate (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.58). In the bivariate NMA for MTX‐naïve populations, most combinations of MTX with either biologic or tofacitinib were statistically superior to MTX alone for both ACR50 response and remission. Triple therapy (MTX + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine) was the only nonbiologic DMARD statistically superior to MTX for either ACR50 response (odds ratio [OR] 95% credible interval: 2.1 [1.0, 4.3]) or remission (OR: 2.5 [1.0, 5.8]). In the MTX‐IR analysis, all treatments except MTX + sulfasalazine were statistically superior to MTX alone. Compared to analyzing the outcomes separately, the bivariate model often resulted in more precise estimates and allowed remission to be estimated for all treatments.

Conclusion

Borrowing the strength of correlation between outcomes allowed us to demonstrate a statistically significant benefit for remission across most MTX‐based DMARD combinations, including triple therapy.

Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Targeted Therapies meeting 2019

Objectives

To detail the greatest areas of unmet scientific and clinical needs in rheumatology.

Methods

The 21st annual international Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting brought together more than 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were convened, consisting of 5 disease-specific groups with 20–30 experts assigned to each group based on expertise. Specific groups included: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and other systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. In each group, experts were asked to identify unmet clinical and translational research needs in general and then to prioritise and detail the most important specific needs within each disease area.

Results

Overarching themes across all disease states included the need to innovate clinical trial design with emphasis on studying patients with refractory disease, the development of trials that take into account disease endotypes and patients with overlapping inflammatory diseases, the need to better understand the prevalence and incidence of inflammatory diseases in developing regions of the world and ultimately to develop therapies that can cure inflammatory autoimmune diseases.

Conclusions

Unmet needs for new therapies and trial designs, particularly for those with treatment refractory disease, remain a top priority in rheumatology.

Testing population-based performance measures identifies gaps in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) care

BACKGROUND

The study evaluates Performance Measures (PMs) for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA): The percentage of patients with new onset JIA with at least one visit to a pediatric rheumatologist in the first year of diagnosis (PM1); and the percentage of patients with JIA under rheumatology care seen in follow-up at least once per year (PM2).

METHODS

Validated JIA case ascertainment algorithms were used to identify cases from provincial health administrative databases in Manitoba, Canada in patients < 16 years between 01/04/2005 and 31/03/2015. PM1: Using a 3-year washout period, the percentage of incident JIA patients with ≥1 visit to a pediatric rheumatologist in the first year was calculated. For each fiscal year, the proportion of patients expected to be seen in follow-up who had a visit were calculated (PM2). The proportion of patients with gaps in care of > 12 and > 14 months between consecutive visits were also calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four incident JIA cases were diagnosed between 01/04/2008 and 03/31/2015. The median age at diagnosis was 9.1 years and 71% were female. PM1: Across the years, 51-81% of JIA cases saw a pediatric rheumatologist within 1 year. PM2: Between 58 and 78% of patients were seen in yearly follow-up. Gaps > 12, and > 14, months were observed once during follow-up in 52, and 34%, of cases, and ≥ twice in 11, and 5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal access to pediatric rheumatologist care was observed which could lead to diagnostic and treatment delays and lack of consistent follow-up, potentially negatively impacting patient outcomes.

Correlates of Successful Rheumatoid Arthritis Flare Management: Clinician-driven Treatment, Home-based Strategies, and Medication Change

OBJECTIVE

Describe strategies used to manage rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flares that contribute to a successful postflare outcome.

METHODS

Data were collected from the BRASS registry, including clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and a survey with a Likert scale assessing postflare symptoms (better, unchanged, or worse). A logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, flare number in the past 6 months, flare pain severity, home management, clinical consultation, and medication change was performed to evaluate factors influencing flare outcome.

RESULTS

Of 503 participants, 185 reported at least 1 flare that had resolved in the past 6 months, with median (interquartile range) 28-joint count Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein 3 score 2.1 (1.7-2.8). Compared with RA symptoms before the flare, 22 (12%) patients felt worse, 125 (68%) were unchanged, and 38 (20%) felt better. To manage flares, 72% of patients used home-based remedies, 23% sought clinical consultation, and 56% made medication change. Of 103 patients who changed medication, 70% did so without seeking clinical advice. Making a medication change (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.68-7.21) and having lower flare pain (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.97) were associated with better flare outcome.

CONCLUSION

Flares occur frequently even in patients with low disease activity. Independent of home-based or clinically guided care, making a medication change and having less severe pain during a flare were associated with better flare outcomes. Of interest, the decision to change medications was frequently made without clinical advice. Future studies might address how best to intervene when patients experience flares and whether patient-initiated medication changes have adverse outcomes.

Adaptive Trial Designs in Rheumatology: Report from the OMERACT Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVE

Adaptive trial design was developed initially for oncology to improve trial efficiency. If optimized for rheumatology, it may improve trial efficiency by reducing sample size and time.

METHODS

A systematic review assessed design of phase II clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six trials were reviewed. Most trials had 4 groups (1 control and 3 intervention), with an average group size of 34 patients. American College of Rheumatology 20 measured at 16 weeks was the most commonly used primary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

The next step is to undertake a systematic review of adaptive designs used in early-phase trials in nonrheumatic conditions.

Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Targeted Therapies meeting 2018

To develop a comprehensive listing of the greatest unmet scientific and clinical needs in rheumatology. The 20th annual international Targeted Therapies meeting brought more than 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were convened, consisting of five disease-specific groups with 20-30 experts assigned to each group based on expertise. Specific groups included rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, connective tissue diseases and a basic science immunology group spanning all of these clinical domains. In each group, experts were asked to consider recent accomplishments within their clinical domain in the last year and update the unmet needs in three categorical areas: basic/translational science, clinical science and therapeutic development, and clinical care. While progress was noted among some of previously identified needs, both new needs were identified and themes from prior meetings were re-iterated: the need for better understanding the heterogeneity within each disease, and for identifying preclinical states of disease allowing treatment and prevention of disease in those at risk, and the elusive ability to cure disease. Within the clinical care realm, improved comorbidity management and patient-centred care continue to be unmet needs, and the need for new and affordable therapeutics was highlighted. Unmet needs for new and accessible targeted therapies, disease prevention and ultimately cure remain a priority in rheumatology.

Feasibility of Measurement and Adherence to System Performance Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis in 5 Models of Care

OBJECTIVE

To test the feasibility of reporting on 4 national performance measures for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 5 different models of care.

METHODS

The following performance measures were evaluated in 5 models of care: waiting time (WT) to rheumatologist consultation, percentage of patients seen in yearly followup (FU), percentage taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), and time to starting DMARD. All models aimed to improve early access and care for patients with RA.

RESULTS

A number of feasibility issues were encountered in performance measure evaluation because of differences in site data collection and/or the duration of the model of care. For example, while 4/5 programs maintained clinical or research databases, chart reviews were still required to report on WT. Median WT for care in 2015 varied by site between 21 and 75 days. Yearly FU rates could only be calculated in 2 sites (combined owing to small numbers) and varied between 83% and 100%. Percentage of patients taking a DMARD and time to DMARD could be calculated in 3 models, and rates of DMARD use were between 90% and 100%, with median time to DMARD of 0 days in each.

CONCLUSION

Our review has shown that even in models of care designed to improve access to care and early treatment, data to document improvements are often lacking. Where data were available for measuring, deficits in WT performance were noted for some centers. Our results highlight a need to improve reporting processes to drive quality improvement.

A comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across four systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs)

OBJECTIVES

To compare physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across four systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD).

METHODS

Incident subjects enrolled in four SARD cohorts, namely systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) were studied. The outcomes of interest were baseline Short Form Health Survey physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores. Multivariate analysis was conducted to determine whether PCS and MCS scores differed across SARD type.

RESULTS

The study included 118 SLE (93% women, mean age 36 years), 108 SSc (79% women, mean age 55), 64 RA (63% women, mean age 58) and 25 IIM (68% women, mean age 49) subjects. Mean PCS scores were 38.9 ± 12.2 in SLE, 37.1 ± 13.3 in RA, 35.0 ± 13.6 in SSc and 28.0 ± 15.4 in IIM. Mean MCS scores were 45.0 ± 13.3 in RA, 44.4 ± 14.7 in SSc, 40.1 ± 14.3 in SLE and 33.6 ± 18.7 in IIM. SARD type was an independent predictor of HRQoL with, in some cases, the magnitude of the differences reaching one standard deviation (IIM worse PCS scores compared to SLE (β -12.23 [95% CI -18.11, -6.36; p<0.001]); IIM worse MCS scores compared to SSc (β -11.05 [95% CI -17.53, -4.58; p = 0.001]) and RA (β -11.72 [95% CI -18.62, -4.81; p = 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-SARD research provides a novel approach to gain greater understanding of commonalities and differences across rheumatic diseases. The differences observed warrant further research into correlates and trajectories over time.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Predicting Low Disease State and Remission in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in the First Six Months, Comparing the Simplified Disease Activity Index and European League Against Rheumatism Response Measures: Results From an Early Arthritis Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and Simplified Disease Activity Index 50% (SDAI50) response measures (RMs) and their impact on future response to treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).

METHODS

Biologic agent-naive ERA patients from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort study with complete data at baseline, 3, and 6 months were evaluated. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate the agreement between the EULAR (moderate or good response) and SDAI50 RMs. The RMs at 3 months were also compared for their ability to predict low disease activity state (LDAS) or remission (REM) at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1,124 patients were evaluated. Of those, 215 patients (30%) and 294 patients (45%) failed to achieve a EULAR and SDAI50 response, respectively. There was a good agreement between EULAR and SDAI50 RMs with a kappa of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.66). Throughout the range of disease activity, the SDAI50 response was shown to be more stringent than the EULAR response. Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that both RMs at 3 months were associated with LDAS or REM at 6 months, and SDAI50 had a more significant impact on this outcome compared to the EULAR response.

CONCLUSION

There is a good agreement between the EULAR and SDAI50 RMs. Although a minority of patients have discordant RMs at each end of the disease activity spectrum at baseline, the SDAI50 response at 3 months appears to be a more significant predictor of outcomes at 6 months than EULAR response.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

BACKGROUND

Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.

METHODS

A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.

RESULTS

The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10).

CONCLUSIONS

The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update

OBJECTIVE

A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009-2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations.

METHODS

Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014.

RESULTS

Of 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care.

14-3-3η Autoantibodies: Diagnostic Use in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective.

To describe the expression and diagnostic use of 14-3-3η autoantibodies in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods.

14-3-3η autoantibody levels were measured using an electrochemiluminescent multiplexed assay in 500 subjects (114 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive patients with early RA, 135 with established RA, 55 healthy, 70 autoimmune, and 126 other non-RA arthropathy controls). 14-3-3η protein levels were determined in an earlier analysis. Two-tailed Student t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests compared differences among groups. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and diagnostic performance was estimated by area under the curve (AUC), as well as specificity, sensitivity, and likelihood ratios (LR) for optimal cutoffs.

Results.

Median serum 14-3-3η autoantibody concentrations were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in patients with early RA (525 U/ml) when compared with healthy controls (235 U/ml), disease controls (274 U/ml), autoimmune disease controls (274 U/ml), patients with osteoarthritis (259 U/ml), and all controls (265 U/ml). ROC curve analysis comparing early RA with healthy controls demonstrated a significant (p < 0.0001) AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.85–0.95). At an optimal cutoff of ≥ 380 U/ml, the ROC curve yielded a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 91%, and a positive LR of 8.0. Adding 14-3-3η autoantibodies to 14-3-3η protein positivity enhanced the identification of patients with early RA from 59% to 90%; addition of 14-3-3η autoantibodies to anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and/or rheumatoid factor (RF) increased identification from 72% to 92%. Seventy-two percent of RF- and ACPA-seronegative patients were positive for 14-3-3η autoantibodies.

Conclusion.

14-3-3η autoantibodies, alone and in combination with the 14-3-3η protein, RF, and/or ACPA identified most patients with early RA.

Earlier time to remission predicts sustained clinical remission in early rheumatoid arthritis--results from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence and predictive factors of sustained remission in an early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) population. Predictive factors of sustained remission in ERA are unknown. We hypothesized that a short time to remission is an important predictor of sustained clinical remission.

METHODS

Patients in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort were included. Remission was defined by Boolean-based American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism clinical trial and clinical practice definitions and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). Logistic regression analysis identified predictors of sustained remission and influence of time to remission.

RESULTS

Of 1840 patients, 633 (34%) achieved clinical trial remission, 759 (41%) clinical practice remission, and 727 (39%) SDAI remission. Over half of those meeting remission criteria achieved sustained remission based on clinical trial (55%), clinical practice (60%), and/or SDAI (58%). Corticosteroid use and lack of initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) were associated with decreased probability of sustained remission, while initial combination DMARD increased this probability. Female sex, greater pain, and longer time to first remission made sustained remission less likely.

CONCLUSION

Female sex, greater pain, and lack of initial DMARD therapy reduced the probability of sustained remission. A shorter time to remission is related to sustainability and supports striving for early remission.

Serum 14-3-3η is a Novel Marker that Complements Current Serological Measurements to Enhance Detection of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective.

Serum 14-3-3η is a novel joint-derived proinflammatory mediator implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In our study, we assessed the diagnostic utility of 14-3-3η and its association with standard clinical and serological measures.

Methods.

A quantitative ELISA was used to assess 14-3-3η levels. Early (n = 99) and established patients with RA (n = 135) were compared to all controls (n = 385), including healthy subjects (n = 189). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 14-3-3η, and the likelihood ratios (LR) for RA were determined through receiver-operator curve analysis. The incremental value of adding 14-3-3η to anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF) in diagnosing early and established RA was assessed.

Results.

Serum 14-3-3η differentiated established patients with RA from healthy individuals and all controls (p < 0.0001). A serum 14-3-3η cutoff of ≥ 0.19 ng/ml delivered a sensitivity and specificity of 77% and 93%, respectively, with corresponding LR positivity of 10.4. At this cutoff in early RA, 64% of patients with early RA were positive for 14-3-3η, with a corresponding specificity of 93% (LR+ of 8.6), while 59% and 57% were positive for ACPA or RF, respectively. When ACPA, RF, and 14-3-3η positivity were used in combination, 77 of the 99 patients (78%) with early RA were positive for any 1 of the 3 markers. Serum 14-3-3η did not correlate with C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or Disease Activity Score, but patients who were 14-3-3η-positive had significantly worse disease.

Conclusion.

Serum 14-3-3η is a novel RA mechanistic marker that is highly specific, associated with worse disease, and complements current markers, enabling a more accurate diagnosis of RA.

Prophylaxis for latent tuberculosis infection prior to anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy in low-risk elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine if low-risk elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who screen positive for latent tuberculosis (TB) infection prior to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy should be given isoniazid (INH).

METHODS

A Markov model was developed. The base case was a patient age 65 years with RA starting anti-TNF therapy with a positive tuberculin skin test (TST) finding of 5–9 mm, who was born in a country with low TB prevalence and had no other TB risk factors. The decision was 9 months of INH or not. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life expectancy. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

No prophylaxis was favored, with a gain of 1.1 quality-adjusted life days, but the decision was sensitive to several variables. Prophylaxis was favored for patients ages <61 years, if the relative risk (RR) of TB reactivation with RA alone was >2.5, if the RR with anti-TNF therapy was >5.8, or if the utility associated with INH therapy was >0.98. Prophylaxis was also preferred for patients with a TST result >10 mm and for patients from higher risk countries. If 6 months of INH or 4 months of rifampin were used, prophylaxis was preferred, providing that therapy reduced the risk of TB reactivation by >47% and >27%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Withholding prophylaxis prior to anti-TNF therapy may be reasonable for low-risk elderly RA patients with a TST finding of 5–9 mm, although the decision is sensitive to patient preferences. For patients age <61 years from a higher risk country, or with a TST finding >10 mm, prophylaxis is preferred.

Imaging of rheumatoid arthritis

Increased awareness of the need for early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and advances in the ability to effectively treat rheumatoid arthritis have made disease remission and maintenance of function a reality for many patients. However, identification of patients who are at risk for erosive disease remains a challenge. As more is learnt about risk factors for disease severity and the role of imaging techniques such as ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, the ability to prevent disease progression in the form of joint damage and its attendant deformity and functional limitation will further improve.

Consensus statement on blocking the effects of interleukin-6 and in particular by interleukin-6 receptor inhibition in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions

BACKGROUND

Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion.

METHODS

Preparation of this document involved international experts in RA treatment and RA patients. A systematic literature search was performed that focused on TCZ and other IL6-pathway inhibitors in RA and other diseases. Subsequently, incorporating available published evidence and expert opinion, the steering committee and a broader expert committee (both including RA patients) formulated the current consensus statement.

RESULTS

The consensus statement covers use of TCZ as combination- or monotherapy in various RA populations and includes clinical, functional and structural aspects. The statement also addresses the second approved indication in Europe JIA and non-approved indications. Also early phase trials involving additional agents that target the IL-6 receptor or IL-6 were evaluated. Safety concerns, including haematological, hepatic and metabolic issues as well as infections, are addressed likewise.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety. The document is aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.

Anticitrullinated protein antibodies and rheumatoid factor fluctuate in early inflammatory arthritis and do not predict clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

In inflammatory arthritis, rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) are believed to be associated with more severe clinical outcomes. Our objective was to determine whether ACPA and RF remain stable in early inflammatory arthritis and whether their trajectories over time or baseline levels predicted clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The study population consisted of patients enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort Study with baseline and at least 12-month followup values of RF and ACPA. Primary outcomes were Disease Activity Score (DAS) remission and the presence of erosions at 12 and 24 months. Other objectives included swollen joint count, Health Assessment Questionnaire score, and DAS.

RESULTS

At baseline, 225/342 (66%) patients were ACPA-positive and 334/520 (64%) were RF-positive. At 24 months, 15/181 (8%) ACPA-positive patients became negative. A larger number of patients changed from ACPA-negative to positive: 13/123 (11%). For RF, fluctuations were more common: 67/240 (28%) reverted from positive to negative and 21/136 (18%) converted from negative to positive. RF and ACPA fluctuations did not predict disease outcomes. Patients who remained ACPA-positive throughout followup were more likely to have erosive disease (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.68, 8.92).

CONCLUSION

RF and ACPA have the potential to revert and convert during the early course of disease. Fluctuations in RF and ACPA were not associated with clinical outcomes.

Identifying core domains to assess flare in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT international patient and provider combined Delphi consensus

OBJECTIVE

For rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is no consensus on how to define and assess flare. Variability in flare definitions impairs understanding of findings across studies and limits ability to pool results. The OMERACT RA Flare Group sought to identify domains to define RA flares from patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives.

METHODS

Flare was described as a worsening of disease activity of sufficient intensity and duration to consider a change in therapy. International patients and HCPs participated in separate and combined rounds of Delphi exercises to rate candidate flare domains previously generated in patient focus groups. Core domains were defined as those with ≥70% ratings of being 'essential' according to the third/final Delphi exercise.

RESULTS

The final Delphi included 125 RA patients from 10 countries and 108 HCPs from 23 countries who rated 14 domains. Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 56±12 years and disease duration of 18±12 years. HCPs included physicians from clinical practice/research and industry, allied health providers and researchers with 17±11 years experience. Core domains comprised: pain (93%), function (89%), swollen joints (84%), tender joints (81%), participation (81%), stiffness (79%), patient global assessment (76%) and self-management (75%). Fatigue (68%), which did not reach group consensus, will receive additional consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

As part of the process to develop a measure for RA flare, patients and HCPs agreed on eight core domains. Next steps include identifying items to assess domains and conducting studies to validate and refine a new measure.

Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: part II safety

OBJECTIVE

The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) has developed recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in 2 parts. Part II, focusing on specific safety aspects of treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA, is reported here.

METHODS

Key questions were identified a priori based on results of a national needs-assessment survey. A systematic review of all clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA published between January 2000 and June 2010 was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and was supplemented with a "grey literature" search including relevant public health guidelines. Systematic reviews of postmarketing surveillance and RA registry studies were performed to update included guideline literature reviews as appropriate. Guideline quality was independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Guideline characteristics, recommendations, and supporting evidence from observational studies and randomized trials were synthesized into evidence tables. The working group voted on recommendations using a modified Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Thirteen recommendations addressing perioperative care, screening for latent tuberculosis infection prior to the initiation of biologic DMARD, optimal vaccination practices, and treatment of RA patients with active or a history of malignancy were developed for rheumatologists, other primary prescribers of RA drug therapies, and RA patients.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations were developed based on a synthesis of international RA and public health guidelines, supporting evidence, and expert consensus in the context of the Canadian health system. They are intended to help promote best practices and improve healthcare delivery for persons with RA.

Sex differences in pain scores and localization in inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review and metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify and examine reports of sex-stratified pain measurements in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

Data sources included PubMed (1950 to April 2010), Embase (1980 to April 2010), and manual searches of reference lists and conference abstracts. We included cohort studies and randomized trials comparing pain scores, treatment efficacy at reducing pain, or pain localization, between females and males with inflammatory arthritis [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and reactive arthritis].

RESULTS

Twenty-six cohorts and 1 randomized trial reported sex-stratified pain scores, and all but 1 cohort identified worse pain scores at enrollment in females. In a metaanalysis of mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores (0 to 10) in 16 RA cohort studies (reporting on 21,612 females and 6871 males), the standardized mean difference in VAS was 0.21 (95% CI 0.16, 0.26). Treatment with disease-modifying therapy results in improvement in mean scores for both sexes; however, female absolute scores remain higher. In 12 spondyloarthropathy cohorts reporting pain localization, females develop more peripheral arthritis during their disease course (68.9% vs 51.2%) but less inflammatory back pain (50.6% vs 66.4%).

CONCLUSION

We identified important sex differences in pain scores in inflammatory arthritis, with higher pain levels in females. In spondyloarthritis, females develop more peripheral arthritis and have less frequent spinal involvement compared to males. These differences may affect a clinician's perception of disease severity and activity, and thus influence management decisions.

Etanercept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept (ETN) is the first anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent to be approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Over the last 8 years, several clinical trials have shown its efficacy and safety in established and early RA, as well as a monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate. ETN not only reduces the signs and symptoms of RA, but also retards the progression of radiographic damage and improves the quality of life and function of patients. Its safety profile has been predictable since the first clinical trials with no new major safety concerns. Beyond its efficacy in RA, ETN is also indicated for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. This current report reviews the evidence and the data in RA and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Multinational evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E Initiative

Objective

To develop evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA).

Methods

697 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2008–9 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and modified Delphi votes. In the first round 10 clinical questions were selected. A bibliographic team systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR 2007–2008 meeting abstracts. Relevant articles were reviewed for quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis. In the second round each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed.

Results

A total of 39 756 references were identified, of which 250 were systematically reviewed. Ten multinational key recommendations about the investigation and follow-up of UPIA were formulated. One recommendation addressed differential diagnosis and investigations prior to establishing the operational diagnosis of UPIA, seven recommendations related to the diagnostic and prognostic value of clinical and laboratory assessments in established UPIA (history and physical examination, acute phase reactants, autoantibodies, radiographs, MRI and ultrasound, genetic markers and synovial biopsy), one recommendation highlighted predictors of persistence (chronicity) and the final recommendation addressed monitoring of clinical disease activity in UPIA.

Conclusions

Ten recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up UPIA in the clinical setting were developed. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, thus enhancing their validity and practical use.