Possibilities for personalised medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: hype or hope

Personalised care packages for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Disease management in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires holistic assessment. We aimed to design personalised care packages suitable for people with RA.

METHODS

This study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach and exploratory sequential design. Consensus workshops were held, involving people with RA and healthcare professionals (HCPs) treating them. Subsequently, an online survey sought views on future care packages for people with RA at relevant disease progression/stages, based on (1) results from previous quantitative data analyses (eg, socioeconomic/clinical factors), and (2) themes identified during workshops.

RESULTS

Two conceptual care pathways were identified: (1) around the time of RA diagnosis, an early opportunity to influence the disease course; (2) for individuals with established RA, emphasising the importance of 'the right MDT member at the right time'.Three care packages were suggested: (1) early care package (around RA diagnosis): introduction to MDT; (2) continuity of care package (established RA): primary/secondary providers; and (3) personalised holistic care package: integral to packages 1 and 2, implemented alongside allied health professionals.The survey received 41 responses; 82.9% agreed that people with RA need a consistent 'early care package' at diagnosis. 85.4% approved of additional care packages tailored to individuals' clinical, psychological and social needs when moving to different stages of their long-term disease. Fleiss' Kappa calculations demonstrated fair level of agreement among respondents.

CONCLUSION

Two care pathways, with three tailored care packages, were identified, with potential to improve management of people with RA. Future research will help to determine if such care packages can impact clinical (including patient-reported) outcomes.

Distinction and prognosis of early arthritis phenotypes: an analysis in three European cohorts

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate whether there are differences in the long-term prognosis across various phenotypes of early arthritis (EA).

METHODS

Three EA cohorts (Reade, Etude et Suivi des Polyarthrites Indifférenciées Récentes (ESPOIR) and Early Arthritis Clinic (EAC)) were analysed. Clinical data were collected up to 24 years. Hands and feet radiographs were scored according to the Sharp van der Heijde (SvdH) method. Latent class analysis was applied to determine the EA phenotypes at baseline. Each class received a label reflecting its most prominent features. Prognostic outcomes included Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Short Form 36 (SF36) and SvdH score. The association between class membership and outcomes over time was tested in multivariable models.

RESULTS

In total, 390 (Reade), 798 (ESPOIR) and 3991 (EAC) patients were analysed separately. Two classes with symmetrical polyarthritis emerged; one of these labelled as autoimmune inflammatory polyarthritis (AIPA), had high likelihood of acute phase reactants (APR) elevation and autoantibody positivity, while the other (mild-inflammatory polyarthritis; MIPA) had not. A third class had oligoarthritis of upper limbs (OAUL) and could be subdivided into autoimmune OAUL and mild-inflammatory OAUL. A fifth class had oligoarthritis of lower limbs. The SvdH scores were worse in patients with APR/autoantibodies (AIPA) than in those without (MIPA). No clinically meaningful differences across classes in HAQ or SF36 over time were found.

CONCLUSION

Radiographic progression over time primarily occurs in EA patients with APR/autoantibodies. The absence of these markers, however, does not necessarily translate into better long-term function and quality of life. Clinicians should not only aim at preventing joint damage, but look beyond structural progression in order to further improve the lives of people with EA.

A JAK Inhibitor for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Baricitinib Experience

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provides improvements in clinical signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes. Currently, baricitinib is approved for treating RA in more than 75 countries. In several pivotal Phase II and III RA trials (RA-BALANCE, RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, RA-BUILD, RA-BEACON, RA-BEYOND), up to seven years of baricitinib treatment was well tolerated and provided rapid and sustained efficacy, which was confirmed in real-world settings. Safety signals for another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, have emerged, as observed in the post-marketing Phase IIIb/IV trial Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance; safety signals were subsequently highlighted in a retrospective study of baricitinib and consequently new recommendations and warnings and precautions for all JAK inhibitors have been issued. Ongoing studies to further characterise and clarify the benefit:risk of JAK inhibitors include registries and controlled trials. This capstone review summarises clinical and real-world data outlining the benefit:risk profile of baricitinib, confirming that the improved disease activity and physical function of patients with RA treated with this JAK inhibitor observed in clinical trials is translated into effectiveness in clinical practice, with a low rate of discontinuations.

Rheumatoid arthritis study of the Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR): nationwide presentation and worldwide stance

To depict the spectrum of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Egypt in relation to other universal studies to provide broad-based characteristics to this particular population. This work included 10,364 adult RA patients from 26 specialized Egyptian rheumatology centers representing 22 major cities all over the country. The demographic and clinical features as well as therapeutic data were assessed. The mean age of the patients was 44.8 ± 11.7 years, disease duration 6.4 ± 6 years, and age at onset 38.4 ± 11.6 years; 209 (2%) were juvenile-onset. They were 8750 females and 1614 males (F:M 5.4:1). 8% were diabetic and 11.5% hypertensive. Their disease activity score (DAS28) was 4.4 ± 1.4 and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) 0.95 ± 0.64. The rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) were positive in 73.7% and 66.7% respectively. Methotrexate was the most used treatment (78%) followed by hydroxychloroquine (73.7%) and steroids (71.3%). Biologic therapy was received by 11.6% with a significantly higher frequency by males vs females (15.7% vs 10.9%, p = 0.001). The least age at onset, F:M, RF and anti-CCP positivity were present in Upper Egypt (p < 0.0001), while the highest DAS28 was reported in Canal cities and Sinai (p < 0.0001). The HAQ was significantly increased in Upper Egypt with the least disability in Canal cities and Sinai (p = 0.001). Biologic therapy intake was higher in Lower Egypt followed by the Capital (p < 0.0001). The spectrum of RA phenotype in Egypt is variable across the country with an increasing shift in the F:M ratio. The age at onset was lower than in other countries.

Serum HDAC4 level in rheumatoid arthritis: Longitudinal change during treatment and correlation with clinical outcomes

Objective

Histone deacetylase 4 (HDAC4) modulates immunity, inflammation, and osteoblast differentiation to engage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) etiology. This study aimed to evaluate the HDAC4 longitudinal change and its relationship with clinical features and outcomes in RA patients.

Methods

Eighty‐three RA patients were enrolled. Their serum HDAC4 level was detected by ELISA at baseline (W0), week (W) 4, W12, and W24 after treatment. RA patients were divided into response or non‐response, low disease activity (LDA) or non‐LDA, remission or non‐remission patients according to their treatment outcomes at W24. Meanwhile, serum HDAC4 was detected by ELISA in 20 osteoarthritis patients and 20 healthy controls (HCs).

Results

HDAC4 level was reduced in RA patients compared with HCs (p < 0.001) and osteoarthritis patients (p = 0.009). HDAC4 was negatively related to some of the disease activity indexes such as C‐reactive protein (p = 0.003), tender joint count (p = 0.025), and disease activity score based on 28 joints (p = 0.013) in RA patients; it was also negatively correlated with TNF‐α (p = 0.003), IL‐6 (p = 0.022), and IL‐17A (p = 0.015). However, the HDAC4 level was not related to different treatment histories or current initiating treatment regimens (all p < 0.05). After treatment, HDAC4 was gradually elevated along with the time (p < 0.001). Interestingly, HDAC4 level at W12 (p = 0.041) and W24 (p = 0.012) was higher in response patients versus non‐response patients, and its level at W24 was higher in LDA patients versus non‐LDA patients (p = 0.019), and in remission patients versus non‐remission patients (p = 0.039).

Conclusion

HDAC4 gradually increases during treatment and its elevation estimates good treatment outcomes in RA patients.

Controversies in rheumatology: Ultrasound for monitoring of RA - do we need it?

Clinical joint examination is the cornerstone for evaluation of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, since large discrepancies have been shown even between experienced rheumatologists in evaluation of joint inflammation, and tender joints may have limited value in reflecting inflammation, ultrasound has in the last decennials been introduced in the clinical assessments of RA patients. Ultrasound has high accordance with other imaging modalities and enables detection of clinically difficult pathologies and contributes to assessments of joints difficult to evaluate clinically. However, there is no general agreement on the optimal use of ultrasound in rheumatology and the prevalence of machines as well as the level of experience is highly different across the countries. In addition, standardized use of ultrasound in treat-to-target follow-up of RA patients was found not to have any added value. Thus, how to use ultrasound in monitoring of RA patients is open for debate. The present article will discuss the pros and cons for using ultrasound in the clinical setting.