Impact of intravenous abatacept on synovitis, osteitis and structural damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: the ASSET randomised controlled trial

Selective Inhibition of the MK2 Pathway: Data From a Phase IIa Randomized Clinical Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of ATI-450 with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A parallel-assignment, placebo-controlled, investigator-blinded/patient-blinded multicenter study evaluated patients with moderate-to-severe RA aged 18 to 70 years. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to ATI-450 50-mg oral tablets twice daily or placebo with a stable weekly dose of methotrexate for 12 weeks. The primary objective was to assess ATI-450 safety and tolerability. The secondary objectives were to assess the median percentage change from baseline high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels, the mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on CRP level (DAS28-CRP) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score hand-wrist assessments of synovitis or bone erosion at week 12, and the proportion of patients with American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 (ACR 20/50/70) and with DAS28-CRP scores of less than 2.6. The exploratory outcomes were change from baseline in endogenous and ex vivo-stimulated cytokine levels.

RESULTS

ATI-450 was well tolerated with no severe adverse events reported. ATI-450 reduced median hs-CRP levels by 42% or more at all posttreatment timepoints. In the ATI-450 group, a mean (median) decrease in DAS28-CRP score of 2.0 (2.1) was observed at week 12; proportions of patients with an ACR 20/50/70 response in the per-protocol population were 60%, 33%, and 20%, respectively, at week 12. Endogenous plasma levels of key inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α, macrophage inflammatory protein 1β, interleukin 6, interleukin 8) were reduced across the 12 treatment weeks.

CONCLUSION

This is the first clinical study demonstrating that selective mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-activated protein kinase 2 (MK2) pathway blockade leads to a sustained antiinflammatory effect. This suggests that targeting the MK2 pathway mitigates the tachyphylaxis observed with p38 MAPK inhibitors in RA and supports further exploration.

MRI and Dose Selection in a Phase II Trial of Baricitinib with Conventional Synthetic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used in a phase IIb study of baricitinib in patients with RA to support dose selection for the phase III program.

METHODS

Three hundred one patients with active RA who were taking stable methotrexate were randomized 2:1:1:1:1 to placebo or once-daily baricitinib (1, 2, 4, or 8 mg) for up to 24 weeks. One hundred fifty-four patients with definitive radiographic erosion had MRI of the hand/wrist at baseline and at weeks 12 and 24. Two expert radiologists, blinded to treatment and visit order, scored images for synovitis, osteitis, bone erosion, and cartilage loss. Combined inflammation (osteitis + 3× synovitis score) and total joint damage (erosion + 2.5× cartilage loss score) scores were calculated. Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA adjusting for baseline scores.

RESULTS

Mean changes from baseline to Week 12 for synovitis were -0.10, -1.50, and -1.60 for patients treated with placebo, baricitinib 4 mg, and baricitinib 8 mg, respectively (p = 0.003 vs placebo for baricitinib 4 and 8 mg). Mean changes for osteitis were 0.00, -3.20, and -2.10 (p = 0.001 vs placebo for baricitinib 4 mg and p = 0.037 for 8 mg), respectively. Mean changes for bone erosion were 0.90, 0.10, and 0.40 (p = 0.089 for 4 mg and p = 0.275 for 8 mg), respectively, in these treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

MRI findings in this subgroup of patients suggest suppression of synovitis, osteitis, and combined inflammation by baricitinib 4 and 8 mg. This corroborates previously demonstrated clinical efficacy of baricitinib and increases confidence that baricitinib 4 mg could reduce the radiographic progression in phase III studies. [Clinical trial registration number (www.ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT01185353].

Efficacy and safety of various anti-rheumatic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biologics and traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are generally used in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Previous studies have presented abundant data and information about the efficacy of such treatments, but the results were incomplete and inconclusive. This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare and assess the efficacy and safety of 15 therapies employing biologics and DMARDs for RA patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six outcomes (American College of Rheumatology 20% response rate (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, remission, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)) were used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different treatments. The node-splitting method was used to assess the inconsistency, and the rank probabilities of the therapies were estimated by surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Besides, Jadad scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 67 randomized controlled trials with 20,898 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most of the therapies presented better performance than conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and placebo in ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70. Conversely, the safety of cDMARDs and placebo seemed to be superior in AEs and SAEs. Also, tocilizumab (TCZ) and TCZ + methotrexate (MTX) showed better remission in pain compared to other treatments. Overall, certolizumab pegol (CZP) + MTX and TCZ + MTX had higher probability than the other treatments in efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend CZP + MTX as the optimal drug therapy because it has the highest ranking in efficacy outcomes and relatively low risk of adverse events. TCZ + MTX is recommended as an alternative. Abatacept (ABT) and cDMARDs are not recommended due to their low efficacy.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Bilateral Hands Is More Optimal Than MRI of Unilateral Hands for Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the advantages of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of bilateral hands in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with active RA were recruited for clinical assessments, radiographs, and MRI of bilateral hands. Bilateral hands were scanned simultaneously on 3.0 T whole-body MRI system and were scored on synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion according to the RA MRI scoring (RAMRIS) system.

RESULTS

Among 120 patients included, wrist bones and metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ) 2 proximal showed bone erosion in early RA. The second to fifth metacarpal bases and the second to fourth MCPJ distal showed more bone erosion in mid-stage or late-stage RA. When MRI of dominant unilateral hand was analyzed, MRI synovitis and osteitis in 5% of wrists and 3 MRI features in 5-14% of MCPJ were misdiagnosed (McNemar test, all p < 0.05). There were 46% wrist synovitis, 29-52% MCPJ2-5 synovitis, 45% wrist osteitis, and 20%-34% MCPJ2-5 osteitis not detected by joint tenderness and/or swelling. When the clinically more severe hand was selected for MRI of unilateral hand according to physical examination, MRI synovitis in 5% of wrists and 3 MRI features in 7-15% of MCPJ were misdiagnosed (all p < 0.05). Scatter plots and linear regression analyses were used to illustrate RAMRIS between dominant or selected hand (Y values) and nondominant or nonselected hand (X values). All linear models were markedly different from a Y = X linear model, indicating the dominant or clinically more severe hand could not represent the contralateral hand to evaluate RAMRIS.

CONCLUSION

MRI of bilateral hands is more optimal than MRI of the unilateral hand in RA.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the hand and wrist in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis: Comparison of dynamic contrast enhanced assessments with semi-quantitative scoring

The objective of this study was to compare the scope and the discriminative power of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) to those of semi-quantitative MRI scoring for evaluating treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in multicenter randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Sixty-one patients with active RA participated in a double-blind, parallel group, randomized, multicenter methodology study receiving infliximab or placebo through 14 weeks. The most symptomatic wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints (MCPs) were imaged using MRI. In addition to clinical assessments with DAS28(CRP), the severity of inflammation was measured as synovial leak of gadolinium based contrast agent (GBCA) using DCE-MRI (K_trans, primary endpoint) at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 14. Two radiologists independently scored synovitis, osteitis and erosion using RA MRI Score (RAMRIS) and cartilage loss using a 9-point MRI scale (CARLOS). Infliximab showed greater decrease from baseline in DAS28(CRP), DCE-MRI K_trans of wrist and MCP synovium, and RAMRIS synovitis and osteitis at all visits compared with placebo (p<0.001). Treatment effect sizes of infliximab therapy were similar for DAS28(CRP) (1.08; 90% CI (0.63–1.53)) and MRI inflammation endpoints: wrist K_trans (1.00 (0.55–1.45)), RAMRIS synovitis (0.85 (0.38–1.28)) and RAMRIS osteitis (0.99 (0.52–1.43)). Damage measures of bone erosion (RAMRIS) and cartilage loss (CARLOS) were reduced with infliximab compared to with placebo at 14 weeks (p≤0.025). DCE-MRI and RAMRIS were equally sensitive and responsive to the anti-inflammatory effects of infliximab. RAMRIS and CARLOS showed suppression of erosion and cartilage loss, respectively, at 14 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01313520)

Efficacy of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging of bilateral hands

AIM

To examine the efficacy of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of bilateral hands.

METHOD

This prospective study included 35 RA patients. MRI of bilateral hands was performed at baseline and after 12 months of treatment with intravenous abatacept. MRI images were scored for synovitis, osteitis, erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) according to the RA MRI Scoring System (RAMRIS). The primary endpoint was the change in RAMRIS score from baseline. Repair of erosion was defined as a negative change in the erosion score that was greater than the smallest detectable changes (SDCs).

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients completed the study. Median synovitis and osteitis scores showed statistically significant reductions at Month 12 when compared to baseline (synovitis score, -5.5 [P < 0.0001]; osteitis score, -0.5 [P = 0.03]). However, median erosion and JSN scores did not significantly change. At Month 12, 83% of patients showed no progression of erosion scores and repair of erosion was observed in 11% of patients. All patients with repair of erosion achieved functional remission (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index ≤ 0.5). The Simplified Disease Activity Index response rate at Month 1 was identified as an independent factor predicting changes in the erosion scores at Month 12.

CONCLUSION

Abatacept treatment reduced synovitis and osteitis scores and did not worsen erosion and JSN scores at Month 12. Over 10% of patients experienced repair of erosion.

Examining the validity of the rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score according to the OMERACT filter-a systematic literature review

Objective

To examine whether the RA MRI score (RAMRIS) for RA of the wrist/hand meets the OMERACT filter criteria-truth (validity), discrimination and feasibility.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and Scopus, from 1970 through June 2014, focused on MRI measures of synovitis, osteitis/bone marrow oedema, erosions and/or joint space narrowing in RA randomized controlled trials and observational studies with cohort size ⩾10. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook criteria.

Results

Of 634 MRI titles/abstracts, 202 met the review criteria, with 92 providing at least 1 type of validity. Four articles provided criterion validity, and 26 articles utilized RAMRIS to assess 1.5 T MRI images. Histopathology data showed inflammation corresponding to MRI of synovitis and osteitis. MRI erosions corresponded to those identified with CT. Content and construct validity for RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and erosions were documented by correlations with clinical, laboratory and/or radiographic data. Each measure was sensitive to change and responsive to therapy. RAMRIS synovitis and osteitis were able to discriminate between the efficacy of treatments vs placebo in 12-week studies, whereas RAMRIS erosions required studies of ⩾24 weeks.

Conclusion

RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and erosions imaged with 1.5 T MRI are valid and useful for evaluating joint inflammation and damage for RA of the wrist/hand, according to the OMERACT filter.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Monitoring total-body inflammation and damage in joints and entheses: the first follow-up study of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate changes in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) inflammatory and structural lesions in most joints and entheses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with adalimumab.

METHODS

WBMRI was obtained at weeks 0, 6, 16, and 52 in a 52 week follow-up study of 37 RA patients starting treatment with adalimumab. Readability and reliability of WBMRI were investigated for 76 peripheral joints, 23 discovertebral units, the sacroiliac joints, and 33 entheses. Changes in WBMRI joint and entheses counts were investigated.

RESULTS

The readability of peripheral and axial joints was 82-100%, being less for elbows and small joints of the feet. For entheses, 72-100% were readable, except for entheses at the anterior chest wall, elbow, knee, and plantar fascia. The intrareader agreement was high for bone marrow oedema (BMO), bone erosion (80-100%), and enthesitis (77-100%), and slightly lower for synovitis and soft tissue inflammation (50-100%). All synovitis, BMO, and soft tissue inflammation counts decreased numerically during treatment. The 26-joint synovitis WBMRI count decreased significantly during the first 16 weeks for patients with a good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response (from median 6 to 4, p < 0.05), but not for patients with a moderate or no EULAR response. There were no overall changes in structural lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

WBMRI allows simultaneous monitoring of most axial and peripheral joints and entheses in RA patients and can visualize a decrease in inflammatory counts during treatment. This first WBMRI follow-up study of patients with RA encourages further investigation of the usefulness of WBMRI in RA.

Short-term changes on MRI predict long-term changes on radiography in rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis by an OMERACT Task Force of pooled data from four randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), MRI provides earlier detection of structural damage than radiography (X-ray) and more sensitive detection of intra-articular inflammation than clinical examination. This analysis was designed to evaluate the ability of early MRI findings to predict subsequent structural damage by X-ray.

METHODS

Pooled data from four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1022 RA hands and wrists in early and established RA were analysed. X-rays were scored using van der Heijde-modified or Genant-modified Sharp methods. MRIs were scored using Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) RA MRI Score (RAMRIS). Data were analysed at the patient level using multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses.

RESULTS

Progression of MRI erosion scores at Weeks 12 and 24 predicted progression of X-ray erosions at Weeks 24 and 52, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.64 and 0.74, respectively. 12-week and 24-week changes in MRI osteitis scores were similarly predictive of 24-week and 52-week X-ray erosion progressions; pooled AUCs were 0.78 and 0.77, respectively. MRI changes in synovitis at Weeks 12 and 24 also predicted progression of X-ray joint damage (erosion and joint-space narrowing) at Weeks 24 and 52 (AUCs=0.72 and 0.65, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Early changes in joint damage and inflammation detected with MRI predict changes in joint damage evident on subsequent X-rays. These findings support the use of MRI as a valid method for monitoring structural damage in short-duration RCTs.

Diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis; What is the current role of established and new imaging techniques in clinical practice?

Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have become established imaging techniques for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Several publications have pointed out the advantages of these techniques for a more complete evaluation of the inflammation and structural damage at joint level. Recently new imaging techniques as the positron emission tomography (PET) associated with computed tomography (CT) or MRI scan, and the optical imaging have been introduced in the panorama. This article presents the advantages and limitations of each imaging techniques in light with the recent publications.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Efficacy of abatacept in systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective analysis of 11 patients with refractory disease

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of abatacept in patients with SLE refractory to conventional treatment in routine clinical practice.

Methods

This retrospective study included 11 SLE patients treated with abatacept for an active and refractory disease. The primary endpoint was the change in SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score at six months. Response was defined as a decrease of SLEDAI ≥4 in a patient continuing abatacept.

Results

Indications of abatacept treatment were articular ( n=8), renal ( n=1) and cutaneous ( n=1) involvement and autoimmune thrombocytopenia ( n=1). Abatacept was discontinued before six months in two patients, because of adverse event ( n=1) and/or lupus flare ( n=2). The median SLEDAI decreased from 6 (2–20) to 4 (0–20) ( p=0.031). Decrease of SLEDAI ≥4 was observed in 6/11 patients (55%) and response to treatment according to the physician's judgement in 8/11 (73%) patients. Improvement of articular involvement was observed in 7/8 (87.5%) patients. Four adverse events were observed in three patients, but no severe infection occurred.

Conclusion

This study suggests some efficacy of abatacept in patients with refractory disease in routine clinical practice, particularly in the case of articular manifestations, with an acceptable safety profile. These data support conducting new controlled trials of abatacept in SLE patients.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Efficacy of VX-509 (decernotinib) in combination with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: clinical and MRI findings

OBJECTIVE

To assess early effects on joint structures of VX-509 in combination with stable disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy using MRI in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging study randomised patients with RA and inadequate DMARD response to VX-509 100 mg (n=11), 200 mg (n=10) or 300 mg (n=10) or placebo (n=12) once daily for 12 weeks. Outcome measures included American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20; improvement of ≥20%) and disease activity score (DAS28) using C reactive protein (CRP), and the RA MRI scoring (RAMRIS) system.

RESULTS

ACR20 response at week 12 was 63.6%, 60.0% and 60.0% in the VX-509 100-mg, 200-mg and 300-mg groups, respectively, compared with 25.0% in the placebo group. DAS28-CRP scores decreased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing VX-509 doses. Decreases in RAMRIS synovitis scores were significantly different from placebo for all VX-509 doses (p<0.01) and for RAMRIS osteitis scores (p<0.01) for VX-509 300 mg. Treatment was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

VX-509 plus a DMARD reduced the signs and symptoms of RA in patients with an inadequate response to a DMARD alone. MRI responses were detected at week 12. Treatment was generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01754935; results.

Differential gene expression in human abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic occlusive disease

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and aortic occlusive disease (AOD) represent common causes of morbidity and mortality in elderly populations which were previously believed to have common aetiologies. The aim of this study was to assess the gene expression in human AAA and AOD. We performed microarrays using aortic specimen obtained from 20 patients with small AAAs (≤ 55mm), 29 patients with large AAAs (> 55mm), 9 AOD patients, and 10 control aortic specimens obtained from organ donors. Some differentially expressed genes were validated by quantitative-PCR (qRT-PCR)/immunohistochemistry. We identified 840 and 1,014 differentially expressed genes in small and large AAAs, respectively. Immune-related pathways including cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction and T-cell-receptor signalling were upregulated in both small and large AAAs. Examples of validated genes included CTLA4 (2.01-fold upregulated in small AAA, P = 0.002), NKTR (2.37-and 2.66-fold upregulated in small and large AAA with P = 0.041 and P = 0.015, respectively), and CD8A (2.57-fold upregulated in large AAA, P = 0.004). 1,765 differentially expressed genes were identified in AOD. Pathways upregulated in AOD included metabolic and oxidative phosphorylation categories. The UCP2 gene was downregulated in AOD (3.73-fold downregulated, validated P = 0.017). In conclusion, the AAA and AOD transcriptomes were very different suggesting that AAA and AOD have distinct pathogenic mechanisms.

Sustained improvements in MRI outcomes with abatacept following the withdrawal of all treatments in patients with early, progressive rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To assess structural damage progression with subcutaneous abatacept (ABA) in the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment (AVERT) trial following abrupt withdrawal of all rheumatoid arthritis (RA) medication in patients achieving Disease Activity Score (DAS)-defined remission or low disease activity.

Methods

Patients with early, active RA were randomised to ABA plus methotrexate (ABA/MTX) 125 mg/week, ABA 125 mg/week or MTX for 12 months. All RA treatments were withdrawn after 12 months in patients with DAS28 (C reactive protein (CRP)) <3.2. Adjusted mean changes from baseline in MRI-based synovitis, osteitis and erosion were calculated for the intention-to-treat population.

Results

351 patients were randomised and treated: ABA/MTX (n=119), ABA (n=116) or MTX (n=116). Synovitis and osteitis improved, and progression of erosion was statistically less with ABA/MTX versus MTX at month 12 (−2.35 vs −0.68, −2.58 vs −0.68, 0.19 vs 1.53, respectively; p<0.01 for each) and month 18 (−1.34 vs −0.49 −2.03 vs 0.34, 0.13 vs 2.0, respectively; p<0.01 for erosion); ABA benefits were numerically intermediate to those for ABA/MTX and MTX.

Conclusions

Structural benefits with ABA/MTX or ABA may be maintained 6 months after withdrawal of all treatments in patients who have achieved remission or low disease activity.

Trial registration number

NCT01142726; Results.

New pharmacological strategies in rheumatic diseases

Targeting the pathogenic pathway of chronic inflammation represents an unmet challenge for controlling disease activity, preventing functional disability, and maintaining an adequate quality of life in patients with rheumatic diseases. Abatacept, a novel molecule that inhibits co-stimulation signal, induces an inhibitory effect on the T-cells. This will further interfere with the activity of several cell lines, leading to the normalization of the immune response. In the latest years, abatacept has been extensively investigated in studies of rheumatoid arthritis for which it was recently approved as a second line biologic treatment in Romania. This review presents the clinical efficacy of abatacept in several rheumatic diseases and highlights the safety profile of this biological agent. Abbreviations: ACR = American College of Rheumatology, ADR = Adverse drug reaction, APC = antigen presenting cell, ApS = psoriatic arthritis, CRP = C reactive protein, CTLA-4 = Cytotoxic T-Cell Lymphocyte Antigen-4, DAS = Disease activity score, DMARDs = Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, EMA = European Medicine Agency, EULAR = European League Against Rheumatism, FDA = Food and Drugs Administration, HBV = Hepatitis B virus, JIA = Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, LDA = low disease activity (LDA), MRI = magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), MTX = methotrexate, RA = rheumatoid arthritis, RCT = randomized controlled trial, SS = Sjogren's syndrome, TCR = T cell receptor.

Value of ultrasonography as a marker of early response to abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results from the APPRAISE study

Objectives

To study the responsiveness of a combined power Doppler and greyscale ultrasound (PDUS) score for assessing synovitis in biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

In this open-label, multicentre, single-arm study, patients with RA (MTX inadequate responders) received intravenous abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) plus MTX for 24 weeks. A composite PDUS synovitis score, developed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology–European League Against Rheumatism (OMERACT–EULAR)-Ultrasound Task Force, was used to evaluate individual joints. The maximal score of each joint was added into a Global OMERACT–EULAR Synovitis Score (GLOESS) for bilateral metacarpophalangeal joints (MCPs) 2–5 (primary objective). The value of GLOESS containing other joint sets was explored, along with clinical efficacy.

Results

Eighty-nine patients completed the 24-week treatment period. The earliest PDUS sign of improvement in synovitis was at week 1 (mean change in GLOESS (MCPs 2–5): −0.7 (95% CIs −1.2 to −0.1)), with continuous improvement to week 24. Early improvement was observed in the component scores (power Doppler signal at week 1, synovial hyperplasia at week 2, joint effusion at week 4). Comparable changes were observed for 22 paired joints and minimal joint subsets. Mean Disease Activity Score 28 (C reactive protein) was significantly reduced from weeks 1 to 24, reaching clinical meaningful improvement (change ≥1.2) at week 8.

Conclusions

In this first international prospective study, the composite PDUS score is responsive to abatacept. GLOESS demonstrated the rapid onset of action of abatacept, regardless of the number of joints examined. Ultrasound is an objective tool to monitor patients with RA under treatment.

Trial registration number

NCT00767325.

Co-stimulation Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Today and Tomorrow

Abatacept is the only T cell co-stimulation modulator approved thus far for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is licensed for use in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) and/or anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. The upstream mechanism of action of abatacept leads to downstream effects in a variety of cell types associated with the production of autoantibodies and pro-inflammatory cytokines implicated in RA. Accumulating data also suggest effects on other cells involved in the pathogenesis of RA, including regulatory T cells and osteoclasts. Clinical trials have demonstrated that abatacept is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in RA. More recently, evidence from the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment (AVERT) trial showed that complete drug-free remission following treatment with abatacept may be a possibility in some patients with early RA, indicating that the disease course could be altered by early intervention. Equivalent efficacy and onset of action of abatacept and anti-TNF therapy have also been demonstrated in patients with an inadequate response to MTX in the Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE rheumatoid arthritis subjects with background methotrexate (AMPLE) trial. Together, these findings support the use of abatacept in early and established RA.

Comprehensive appraisal of magnetic resonance imaging findings in sustained rheumatoid arthritis remission: a substudy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of sustained American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Boolean remission on residual joint inflammation assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to secondarily evaluate other clinical definitions of remission, within an early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cohort.

METHODS

A subcohort of 118 RA patients was enrolled from patients who completed the 2-year, double-blind randomized Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis (TEAR) trial. Patients received a single contrast-enhanced 1.5T MRI of their most involved wrist. Two readers scored MRIs for synovitis, osteitis, tenosynovitis, and erosions. Clinical assessments were performed every 3 months during the trial and at time of MRI.

RESULTS

The subcohort was 92% seropositive with mean age 51 years, duration 4.1 months, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate 5.8 at TEAR entry. Total MRI inflammatory scores (tenosynovitis + synovitis + osteitis) were lower among patients in clinical remission. Lower MRI scores were correlated with longer duration of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission (ρ = 0.22, P = 0.03). At the time of MRI, 89 patients had no wrist pain/tenderness/swelling; however, all 118 patients had MRI evidence of residual joint inflammation after 2 years. No statistically significant differences in damage or MRI inflammatory scores were observed across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

This is the first detailed appraisal describing the relationship between clinical remission cut points and MRI inflammatory scores within an RA randomized controlled trial. The most stringent remission criteria (2011 ACR/EULAR and CDAI) best differentiate the total MRI inflammatory scores. These results document that 2 years of triple therapy or tumor necrosis factor plus methotrexate treatment in early RA does not eliminate MRI evidence of joint inflammation.

OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Hand imaging in clinical trials in osteoarthritis

Tremendous advances have occurred in our understanding of the pathogenesis of hand osteoarthritis (OA) and these are beginning to be applied to trials targeted at modification of the disease course. The purpose of this expert opinion, consensus driven exercise is to provide detail on how one might use and apply hand imaging assessments in disease modifying clinical trials. It includes information on acquisition methods/techniques (including guidance on positioning for radiography, sequence/protocol recommendations/hardware for MRI); commonly encountered problems (including positioning, hardware and coil failures, sequences artifacts); quality assurance/control procedures; measurement methods; measurement performance (reliability, responsiveness, validity); recommendations for trials; and research recommendations.

From synovial tissue to peripheral blood: myeloid related protein 8/14 is a sensitive biomarker for effective treatment in early drug development in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

The change in number of CD68-positive sublining macrophages in serial synovial biopsies has been successfully used to discriminate on the group level between effective and ineffective treatment during early drug development in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Measurement of a soluble biomarker would clearly have practical advantages. Therefore, we investigated the sensitivity to change of myeloid related protein (MRP)8/14 in serum.

Methods

139 RA patients who received known effective biologics (infliximab, adalimumab and rituximab) and 28 RA patients who received placebo/ineffective therapies were included. MRP8/14 levels were analyzed in baseline and follow-up serum samples and the standardized response mean (SRM) was calculated to determine the sensitivity to change of MRP8/14 in comparison to C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and the disease activity score evaluated in 28 joints (DAS28).

Results

In patients treated with effective treatment, the SRM for MRP8/14 was moderate (0.56), but in patients treated with placebo/ineffective treatment the SRM was 0.06, suggesting that this biomarker is perhaps not susceptible to placebo effects in proof-of-concept studies of relatively short duration. In contrast, the SRM for DAS28 was high for effective treatment (1.07), but also moderate for ineffective treatment (0.58), representing the placebo effect. The SRM for CRP was low in the effective (0.33) and ineffective (0.23) treatment groups.

Conclusion

These data support the notion that quantification of changes in MRP8/14 serum levels could be used to predict potential efficacy of novel antirheumatic drugs in an early stage of drug development. A positive result would support the rationale for larger, conventional clinical trials to determine whether the effects are clinically relevant.

Insights into rheumatoid arthritis from use of MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is ideal for imaging the joints of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. It produces anatomically detailed images of bone, cartilage, tendons and synovial membrane. It can reveal structural damage, in the form of bone erosion, cartilage thinning and/or tendon rupture, and regions of inflammation, using sequences that reveal water content and vascularity. MRI synovitis, tenosynovitis and bone oedema/osteitis all have prognostic significance, and MRI studies of RA have helped elucidate the mechanisms whereby bone and synovial inflammation lead to joint damage. Bone oedema/osteitis has become an important imaging biomarker, and can be used to help predict progression from undifferentiated arthritis to definite RA. Recent MRI studies have confirmed that subclinical inflammation is often present in patients in clinical remission, and these data may affect disease management. Finally, recent clinical trials are reviewed, in which MRI outcome measures are being established as sensitive response markers.

Updating the OMERACT filter: implications for imaging and soluble biomarkers

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides a framework for the validation of outcome measures for use in rheumatology clinical research. However, imaging and biochemical measures may face additional validation challenges because of their technical nature. The Imaging and Soluble Biomarker Session at OMERACT 11 aimed to provide a guide for the iterative development of an imaging or biochemical measurement instrument so it can be used in therapeutic assessment.

METHODS

A hierarchical structure was proposed, reflecting 3 dimensions needed for validating an imaging or biochemical measurement instrument: outcome domain(s), study setting, and performance of the instrument. Movement along the axes in any dimension reflects increasing validation. For a given test instrument, the 3-axis structure assesses the extent to which the instrument is a validated measure for the chosen domain, whether it assesses a patient-centered or disease-centered variable, and whether its technical performance is adequate in the context of its application. Some currently used imaging and soluble biomarkers for rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and knee osteoarthritis were then evaluated using the original OMERACT Filter and the newly proposed structure. Breakout groups critically reviewed the extent to which the candidate biomarkers complied with the proposed stepwise approach, as a way of examining the utility of the proposed 3-dimensional structure.

RESULTS

Although there was a broad acceptance of the value of the proposed structure in general, some areas for improvement were suggested including clarification of criteria for achieving a certain level of validation and how to deal with extension of the structure to areas beyond clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

General support was obtained for a proposed tri-axis structure to assess validation of imaging and soluble biomarkers; nevertheless, additional work is required to better evaluate its place within the OMERACT Filter 2.0.

The effects of tocilizumab on osteitis, synovitis and erosion progression in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the ACT-RAY MRI substudy

Objective

To examine the imaging-detected mechanism of reduction of structural joint damage progression by tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using MRI.

Methods

In a substudy of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3b study (ACT-RAY) of biologic-naïve patients with RA who were methotrexate (MTX)-inadequate responders, 63 patients were randomised to continue MTX or receive placebo (PBO), both in combination with TCZ 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, with optional additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at week 24 if Disease Activity Score of 28 joints < 3.2. The most symptomatic hand was imaged with 0.2 Tesla extremity MRI at weeks 0, 2, 12 and 52. MR images were scored using Outcome Measures in Rheumatology–Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score. Predictors of week 52 erosion progression were determined by logistic regression analysis.

Results

TCZ + PBO (n=32) demonstrated mean improvements in synovitis from baseline to weeks 2 (−0.92; p=0.0011), 12 (−1.86; p<0.0001) and 52 (−3.35; p<0.0001), while TCZ + MTX (n=31) had mean improvements in synovitis at week 12 (−0.88; p=0.0074), but not week 52 (−1.00; p=0.0711). TCZ+PBO demonstrated mean reductions in osteitis at weeks 12 (−5.10; p=0.0022) and 52 (−8.56; p=0.0006), while TCZ+MTX had mean reductions at weeks 2 (−0.21; p<0.05) and 12 (−3.63; p=0.0008), but not week 52 (−2.31; p=0.9749). Mean erosion scores did not worsen in either group. MRI erosion scores at weeks 12 and 52 correlated strongly with radiography erosion scores at week 52 (r>0.80). Baseline synovitis and worsening of osteitis predicted erosion progression.

Conclusions

Rapid suppression of synovitis and osteitis with reduction in structural joint damage progression occurred with TCZ, as monotherapy or in combination with MTX, through week 52.

Abatacept: a review of its use in the management of rheumatoid arthritis

The biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug abatacept (Orencia) has a novel mechanism of action; its activity is mediated via the selective modulation of T cell co-stimulation. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of intravenous and subcutaneous abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and intravenous abatacept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. In patients with RA, the beneficial effects of intravenous or subcutaneous abatacept on signs and symptoms, disease activity, the progression of structural damage, physical function and/or health-related quality of life were seen in a number of well-designed trials, including in methotrexate-naive patients with early RA and poor prognostic factors and in patients with established RA and an inadequate response to either methotrexate or anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. Subcutaneous abatacept plus methotrexate was also noninferior to subcutaneous adalimumab plus methotrexate in patients with active RA who were naive to biological therapy and had an inadequate response to methotrexate. In paediatric patients with JIA, intravenous abatacept improved signs and symptoms and delayed the time to flare. Abatacept was generally well tolerated in RA and JIA and was associated with low rates of immunogenicity. In conclusion, abatacept is an important option for use in the treatment of RA and JIA.

A treat-to-target strategy with methotrexate and intra-articular triamcinolone with or without adalimumab effectively reduces MRI synovitis, osteitis and tenosynovitis and halts structural damage progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from the OPERA randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether a treat-to-target strategy with methotrexate and intra-articular glucocorticosteroid injections suppresses MRI inflammation and halts structural damage progression in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), and whether adalimumab provides an additional effect.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 85 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with ERA were randomised to receive methotrexate, intra-articular glucocorticosteroid injections and placebo/adalimumab (43/42). Contrast-enhanced MRI of the right hand was performed at months 0, 6 and 12. Synovitis, osteitis, tenosynovitis, MRI bone erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) were scored with validated methods. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) was carried out in 14 patients.

RESULTS

Synovitis, osteitis and tenosynovitis scores decreased highly significantly (p<0.0001) during the 12-months' follow-up, with mean change scores of -3.7 (median -3.0), -2.2 (-1) and -5.3 (-4.0), respectively. No overall change in MRI bone erosion and JSN scores was seen, with change scores of 0.1 (0) and 0.2 (0). The tenosynovitis score at month 6 was significantly lower in the adalimumab group, 1.3 (0), than in the placebo group, 3.9 (2), Mann-Whitney: p<0.035. Furthermore, the osteitis score decreased significantly during the 12-months' follow-up in the adalimumab group, but not in the placebo group, Wilcoxon: p=0.001-0.002 and p=0.062-0.146. DCE-MRI parameters correlated closely with conventional MRI inflammatory parameters. Clinical measures decreased highly significantly during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A treat-to-target strategy with methotrexate and intra-articular glucocorticosteroid in patients with ERA effectively decreased synovitis, osteitis and tenosynovitis and halted structural damage progression as judged by MRI. The findings suggest that addition of adalimumab is associated with further suppression of osteitis and tenosynovitis.

Costimulatory pathways: physiology and potential therapeutic manipulation in systemic lupus erythematosus

System lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an immune-complex-mediated autoimmune condition with protean immunological and clinical manifestation. While SLE has classically been advocated as a B-cell or T-cell disease, it is unlikely that a particular cell type is more pathologically predominant than the others. Indeed, SLE is characterized by an orchestrated interplay amongst different types of immunopathologically important cells participating in both innate and adaptive immunity including the dendritic cells, macrophages, neutrophils and lymphocytes, as well as traditional nonimmune cells such as endothelial, epithelial, and renal tubular cells. Amongst the antigen-presenting cells and lymphocytes, and between lymphocytes, the costimulatory pathways which involve mutual exchange of information and signalling play an essential role in initiating, perpetuating, and, eventually, attenuating the proinflammatory immune response. In this review, advances in the knowledge of established costimulatory pathways such as CD28/CTLA-4-CD80/86, ICOS-B7RP1, CD70-CD27, OX40-OX40L, and CD137-CD137L as well as their potential roles involved in the pathophysiology of SLE will be discussed. Attempts to target these costimulatory pathways therapeutically will pave more potential treatment avenues for patients with SLE. Preliminary laboratory and clinical evidence of the potential therapeutic value of manipulating these costimulatory pathways in SLE will also be discussed in this review.

WITHDRAWN: Abatacept as a first-line biological therapy

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2013.06.008. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn.

Proceedings from the 5th Annual International Society for Musculoskeletal Imaging in Rheumatology Annual Conference

Since its inception, ISEMIR has held an annual education meeting highlighting the changes in the utilization of imaging tools for the management of rheumatic diseases. ISEMIR's international faculty and world-renowned experts have discussed these topics at a very high scientific level. The evolution of the content demonstrates the rapidly changing environment in the field of rheumatology. Advances in treatment have led to the increased use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US). This publication is based upon the proceedings from the 2012 ISEMIR educational meeting that took place on April 26th in Chicago, Illinois. Presentations from the live proceedings can be viewed at www.isemir.org.