Adding ultrasound to treat-to-target shows no benefit in achieving clinical remission nor in slowing radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a multicenter prospective cohort

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether using ultrasound (US) in addition to clinical information versus only clinical information in a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy leads to more clinical remission and to less radiographic progression in RA.

METHODS

Patients with RA from the 2-year prospective BIODAM cohort were included. Clinical and US data (US7-score) were collected every 3 months and hands and feet radiographs every 6 months. At each visit, it was decided whether patients were treated according to the clinical definition of T2T with DAS44 remission as benchmark (T2T-DAS44). T2T-DAS44 was correctly applied if: (i) DAS44 remission had been achieved or (ii) if not, treatment was intensified. A T2T strategy also considering US data (T2T-DAS44-US) was correctly applied if: (i) both DAS44 and US remission (synovitis-score < 2, Doppler-score = 0) were present; or (ii) if not, treatment was intensified. The effect of T2T-DAS44-US on attaining clinical remission and on change in Sharp-van der Heijde score compared to T2T-DAS44 was analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1016 visits of 128 patients were included. T2T-DAS44 was correctly followed in 24% of visits and T2T-DAS44-US in 41%. DAS44 < 1.6 was achieved in 39% of visits. Compared to T2T-DAS44, using the T2T-DAS44-US strategy resulted in a 41% lower likelihood of DAS44 remission [OR (95% CI): 0.59 (0.40;0.87)] and had no effect on radiographic progression [β(95% CI): 0.11 (- 0.16;0.39)] assessed at various intervals up to 12 months later.

CONCLUSION

Our results do not suggest a benefit of using the US7-score in addition to clinical information as a T2T benchmark compared to clinical information alone. Key Points • Ultrasound has a valuable role in diagnostic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis, but it is unclear whether adding ultrasound to the clinical assessment in a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy leads to more patients achieving remission and reduction in radiographic progression. • Our data from a real-world study demonstrated that adding information from ultrasound to the clinical assessment in a T2T strategy led to a lower rather than a higher likelihood of obtaining clinical remission as compared to using only clinical assessment. • Our data demonstrated that adding ultrasound data to a T2T strategy based only on clinical assessment did not offer additional protection against radiographic progression in patients with RA. • Adding US to a T2T strategy based on clinical assessment led to far more treatment intensifications (with consequences for costs and exposure to adverse events) without yielding a meaningful clinical benefit.

Stricter treat-to-target in RA does not result in less radiographic progression: a longitudinal analysis in RA BIODAM

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether meticulously following a treat-to-target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice will lead to less radiographic progression in patients with active RA who start (new) DMARD-therapy.

METHODS

Patients with RA from 10 countries starting/changing conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs because of active RA, and in whom treatment intensification according to the T2T principle was pursued, were assessed for disease activity every 3 months for 2 years (RA-BIODAM cohort). The primary outcome was the change in Sharp-van der Heijde (SvdH) score, assessed every 6 months. Per 3-month interval DAS44-T2T could be followed zero, one or two times (in a total of two visits). The relation between T2T intensity and change in SvdH-score was modelled by generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

In total, 511 patients were included [mean (s.d.) age: 56 (13) years; 76% female]. Mean 2-year SvdH progression was 2.2 (4.1) units (median: 1 unit). A stricter application of T2T in a 3-month interval did not reduce progression in the same 6-month interval [parameter estimates (for yes vs no): +0.15 units (95% CI: -0.04, 0.33) for 2 vs 0 visits; and +0.08 units (-0.06; 0.22) for 1 vs 0 visits] nor did it reduce progression in the subsequent 6-month interval.

CONCLUSIONS

In this daily practice cohort, following T2T principles more meticulously did not result in less radiographic progression than a somewhat more lenient attitude towards T2T. One possible interpretation of these results is that the intention to apply T2T already suffices and that a more stringent approach does not further improve outcome.

POS0111 MORE METICULOUSLY FOLLOWING TREAT-TO-TARGET IN RA DOES NOT LEAD TO LESS RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS IN BIODAM

Background

A Treat-to-Target approach (T2T) is broadly considered to lead to better clinical outcomes and recommended in patients with RA. However, very few studies have analyzed the effect of T2T on radiographic progression, and any such studies have provided inconsistent results.

Objectives

To investigate whether meticulously following a treat-to-target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice leads to lower radiographic progression in RA.

Methods

Patients from the multicenter RA-BIODAM cohort with ≥2 consecutive visits with radiographs available were included. In RA-BIODAM patients were enrolled as they were initiating a new csDMARD/bDMARD treatment were followed-up with the intention to benchmark and intensify treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was the change in Sharp-van der Heijde score (SvdH, 0-448), assessed every 6 months, using average scores from 2 readers (scores with known chronological order). Following a DAS44-T2T remission strategy, which was defined at each 3-month visit, was the main variable of interest. Patients were categorized based on the proportion of visits in which T2T was followed according to our definition: very low (≤40% of the visits, low (>40%, <62.5%), high (≥62.5%, ≤75%) and very high (>75%). Radiographic progression at 2 years was visualized across groups by cumulative probability plots. Per 3-month interval T2T could be followed zero, one or two times (in a total of 2 visits). Associations between the number of visits with T2T in an interval and radiographic progression, both in the same and in the subsequent 6-month interval, were analysed by generalised estimating equations, adjusted for age, gender, disease duration and country.

Results

In total, 511 patients were included (mean (SD) age: 56 (13) years; 76% female). After 2 years, patients showed on average 2.2 (4.1) units progression (median:1 unit). Mean (SD) 2-year progression was not significantly different across categories of T2T: very low: 2.1 (2.7)-units; low: 2.8 (6.0); high: 2.4 (4.5), very high: 1.6 (2.2) (Figure 1). Meticulously following-up T2T in a 3-month interval neither reduced progression in the same 6-month interval (parameter estimates (for yes vs no): +0.15 units (95%CI: -0.04 to 0.33) for 2 vs 0 visits; and +0.08 units (-0.06;0.22) for 1 vs 0 visits) nor did it reduce progression in the subsequent 6-month interval (Table 1).

Table 1.

Effect of following DAS44-remission-T2T strategy on 6-month radiographic progression over 2 years

Change in radiographic damage(regression coefficient (95% CI))N=506T2T during 3 months on radiographic progression in the same 6-month period 2 visits vs 0 followed0.15 (-0.04; 0.33) 1 visit vs 0 followed0.08 (-0.06; 0.22)T2T during 3 months on radiographic progression in the subsequent 6-month period 2 visits vs 0 followed-0.09 (-0.28; 0.10) 1 visit vs 0 followed-0.10 (-0.24; 0.05)Figure 1.

Cumulative probability plot with 2-year radiographic progression according to the proportion of 3-monthly visits with T2T followed

Conclusion

In this daily practice cohort, more meticulously following T2T principles did not result in more reduction of radiographic progression than a somewhat more liberal attitude toward T2T. One possible interpretation of these results is that the intention to apply T2T already suffices and that a more stringent approach does not further improve outcome.

Acknowledgements

BIODAM was financially supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie

Disclosure of Interests

Sofia Ramiro Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, GSK,Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, GSK,Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Dr Landewé owns Rheumatology Consultancy BV, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv., Alexandre Sepriano Speakers bureau: Novartis, Consultant of: UCB, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: Biogen, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS, Novartis, UCB, Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Merck, Celgene and Novartis, Joanne Homik: None declared, Ori Elkayam Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Abbvie, BI, Janssen, Consultant of: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Abbvie, BI, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Janssen, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Maggie Larché Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Fresenius-Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Gianfranco Ferraccioli Speakers bureau: SOBI, Consultant of: Abbivie, Marina Backhaus: None declared, Gilles Boire Speakers bureau: Abbvie Canada, BMS Canada, Lilly Canada, Janssen Canada, Merck Canada, Pfizer Canada, Viatris, Consultant of: Abbvie Canada, Amgen Canada, BMS Canada, Celgene, GileadSciences, Janssen Canada, Lilly Canada, Merck Canada, Mylan Canada, Novartis Canada, Pfizer Canada, Roche Canada, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Canada, Teva, Grant/research support from: Lilly Canada, BMS Canada, Pfizer, Sandoz Canada, UCB Canada, Merck Canada, Novartis Canada, Roche Canada, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS,Celltrion,Galapgos-Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MERCK, Pfizer,Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celltrion,Galapgos-Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MERCK, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche-chugai, Thierry Schaeverbeke: None declared, Alain Saraux Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Fresenius, Lilly, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Galapagos, Biogen, Roche, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Galapagos, Biogen, Roche, Maurizio Rossini Speakers bureau: Amgen, Abbvie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos,MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Theramex, UCB, Marcello Govoni Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Galapagos, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Luigi Sinigaglia: None declared, Alain Cantagrel Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Janssen, Lilly France, Médac, MSD France, Nordic-Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Consultant of: BMS, Janssen, Lilly France, MSD France, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: MSD France, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, Cheryl Barnabe Speakers bureau: Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Consultant of: Gilead, Celltrion Healthcare, Clifton Bingham Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Dirkjan van Schaardenburg: None declared, Hilde Berner Hammer Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Edna Hutchings: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer

POS0037 DOES IMAGING OF THE SACROILIAC JOINT DIFFER IN PATIENTS PRESENTING WITH UNDIAGNOSED BACK PAIN AND PSORIASIS, ACUTE ANTERIOR UVEITIS, AND COLITIS: AN INCEPTION COHORT STUDY

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) presents diagnostic challenges incurring a delay of up to a decade and relies considerably on radiographic and MRI evidence of sacroiliitis which has led to the development of classification criteria which also rely on imaging. However, it has been suggested that such criteria may not be appropriate for axSpA patients presenting with other forms of SpA, especially psoriatic, because imaging features may vary in frequency and/or may be atypical. This hypothesis has never been tested in a prospective inception cohort of patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare the spectrum of radiographic and MRI abnormalities in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) of an inception cohort of patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain and psoriasis, iritis, and colitis.

Methods:

We used data from the prospective multicenter Screening for Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, and Colitis (SASPIC) Study, which is aimed at early detection of axial SpA in patients referred by the respective specialist after first presenting with these disorders. Consecutive patients ≤45 years of age with ≥3 months undiagnosed back pain with any one of psoriasis, AAU, or colitis undergo routine clinical evaluation by a rheumatologist for axial SpA followed by imaging. In SASPIC I, MRI evaluation of the SIJ was ordered per rheumatologist decision. In SASPIC II, MRI evaluation was ordered for all patients. Radiographs and MRI scans were assessed by two central readers and comparisons of the three groups were based on concordant assessments of imaging features. Evaluation of MRI scans included both global assessment for presence/absence of axSpA with confidence scale (-10 to +10), active and structural lesions typical of axSpA per recent ASAS definitions, and granular assessment of individual lesions according to SIJ quadrants and halves in consecutive semicoronal slices through the SIJ. Groups were compared by ANOVA and the chi-square test.

Results:

A total of 240 patients were recruited, 143 from SASPIC I and 97 from SASPIC II, 101 (42.1%) being diagnosed with axSpA (65.3% male, mean age 34.4 years, mean symptom duration 8.7 years, B27 positive 55.4%). Mean age of colitis (N=101), psoriasis (N=61), iritis (N=78) patients were 33.4, 36.6, 34.3 years, respectively, mean symptom duration was 6.8, 7.2, 9.4 years, respectively, and % males were 45.5%, 52.5%, 51.3%, respectively. There were no significant group differences for unilateral versus bilateral radiographic sacroiliitis and no significant differences in the frequencies, type, or distribution of MRI lesions (Table 1).

Conclusion:

Data from the SASPIC prospective inception cohort does not support the view that imaging of the SIJ differs in psoriatic axSpA, which appears similar to axSpA associated with iritis or colitis. These data support the umbrella concept of axSpA.

Imaging FeatureColitis (n=30)Psoriasis (n=19)Iritis (n=52)P valueUnilateral sacroiliitis (grade ≥2), N(%)1 (3.3%)0 (0%)2 (3.8%)0.69mNY criteria +, N(%)5 (16.7%)6 (31.2%)15 (28.8%)0.39Grade of sacroiliitis, mean(SD)1.8 (2.2)2.1 (2.7)2.2 (2.4)0.76MRI indicative of axSpA, N(%)15 (50.0%)11 (57.9%)32 (61.5%)0.60MRI indicative of axSpA (confidence ≥5/10), N(%)14 (46.7%)10 (52.6%)30 (57.7%)0.63MRI active lesion typical of axSpA, N(%)6 (20.0%)6 (31.6%)18 (34.6%)0.37MRI structural lesion typical of axSpA, N(%)11 (36.7%)7 (36.8%)18 (34.6%)0.98MRI with unilateral lesion (any)2 (6.7%)3 (15.8%)11 (21.2%)0.22MRI with unilateral lesion (BME)1 (3.3%)2 (10.5%)5 (9.6%)0.54MRI with unilateral lesion (Erosion)0 (0%)0 (0%)3 (5.8%)0.23MRI with unilateral lesion (Sclerosis)1 (3.3%)1 (5.3%)3 (5.8%)0.89MRI with unilateral lesion (Fat)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)NAMRI with iliac lesion17 (56.7%)12 (63.2%)32 (61.5%)0.88MRI with sacral lesion12 (40.0%)11 (57.9%)31 (59.6%)0.21

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, Raj Carmona: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Jodie Reis: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Dianne Mosher: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared.

SAT0378 THE RELATIVE DIAGNOSTIC UTILITY OF INFLAMMATORY BACK PAIN CRITERIA IN AN INCEPTION COHORT OF PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS, IRITIS, AND COLITIS PRESENTING WITH UNDIAGNOSED BACK PAIN

Background:

Clinicians rely on the elicitation of features of inflammatory back pain (IBP) for diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) but the utility of IBP criteria in patients presenting with extra-articular features of axSpA remains unclear. Assessment of utility should include not only rheumatologist diagnosis as benchmark but imaging to address the circularity between elicitation of IBP and clinical diagnosis.

Objectives:

To assess the diagnostic utility of all criteria for IBP in patients with psoriasis, iritis, or colitis and undiagnosed back pain using the rheumatologist diagnosis and imaging as benchmarks.

Methods:

Consecutive patients (n=246) with undiagnosed back pain ≤45 years of age, ≥3 months, with any one of psoriasis (n=46), acute anterior uveitis (AAU)(n=73), or colitis (n=127) had diagnostic evaluation by a rheumatologist. Majority central reader assessment of MRI indicative of axSpA and diagnosis by the rheumatologist were external standards for testing the utility of these IBP criteria: ASAS, Berlin, Calin, rheumatologist global for IBP >5 (0-10 scale).

Results:

AxSpA was diagnosed in 44.4%, 61.6%, and 41.8% of patients with psoriasis, iritis, and IBD, respectively. Diagnostic utility for all IBP criteria was comparably poor (Table 1). MRI was indicative of axSpA in 21.2%, 43.5%, and 19.7% of patients with psoriasis, iritis, and IBD. The utility of the IBP criteria was even worse using MRI as the external reference (Table 2), especially in patients with psoriasis. Only 14% of psoriasis patients with a positive MRI reported “improvement with exercise but not rest” as compared to 70% and 62% of patients with iritis and IBD, respectively.

Table 1.

Rheumatologist diagnosis as external reference.

SensitivitySpecificityLR+LR-PsoriasisASAS IBP65.00%52.00%1.350.67Berlin IBP80.00%36.00%1.250.56Calin IBP80.00%28.00%1.110.71All 3 criteria sets60.00%56.00%1.360.71IBP global >585.00%36.00%1.330.42AAUASAS IBP84.44%42.86%1.480.36Berlin IBP80.00%57.14%1.870.35Calin IBP93.33%17.86%1.140.37All 3 criteria sets77.78%60.71%1.980.37IBP global >586.67%57.14%2.020.23IBDASAS IBP78.43%45.07%1.430.48Berlin IBP82.35%52.11%1.720.34Calin IBP84.31%19.72%1.050.80All 3 criteria sets70.59%57.75%1.670.51IBP global >580.39%66.20%2.380.30Table 2.

Central assessment that MRI is indicative of axSpA as external reference.

SensitivitySpecificityLR+LR-PsoriasisASAS IBP28.57%38.46%0.461.86Berlin IBP42.86%15.38%0.513.71Calin IBP71.43%23.08%0.931.24All 3 criteria sets14.29%42.31%0.252.03IBP global >585.71%23.08%1.110.62AAUASAS IBP75.00%26.92%1.030.93Berlin IBP70.00%38.46%1.140.78Calin IBP90.00%15.38%1.060.65All 3 criteria sets65.00%38.46%1.060.91IBP global >575.00%38.46%1.220.65IBDASAS IBP92.31%37.74%1.480.20Berlin IBP76.92%39.62%1.270.58Calin IBP92.31%16.98%1.110.45All 3 criteria sets76.92%45.28%1.410.51IBP global >592.31%47.17%1.750.16

Conclusion:

All IBP criteria have poor diagnostic utility for diagnosis of axSpA, especially in patients with psoriasis. This reinforces the desirability of less subjective assessment tools, especially imaging.

Disclosure of Interests:

Georg Kröber: None declared, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Raj Carmona: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

SAT0383 ENHANCED PERFORMANCE OF THE ASAS CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA BY DELETION OF NON-DISCRIMINATORY CLINICAL ITEMS: DATA FROM THE SCREENING IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS IN PSORIASIS, IRITIS, AND COLITIS COHORT

Background:

The ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have overall sensitivity/specificity of 82.9%/84.4% but component imaging and clinical arms differ in performance (66.2%/97.3% and 56.6%/83.3%, respectively)1.

Objectives:

We aimed to demonstrate that a data-driven elimination of SpA clinical features that were non-discriminatory in comparisons of patients diagnosed with and without axSpA in a prospective cohort of patients with undiagnosed back pain could enhance the performance of the criteria.

Methods:

We used data from the prospective multicenter Screening for Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, and Colitis (SASPIC) Study. Consecutive patients ≤45 years of age with ≥3 months undiagnosed back pain with any one of psoriasis, AAU, or colitis undergo routine diagnostic evaluation by a rheumatologist for axial SpA, including imaging assessed by central readers. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine which clinical SpA features were/were not discriminatory for the final diagnosis of axSpA. We then compared the sensitivity and specificity of the ASAS criteria with and without these features.

Results:

A total of 246 patients were recruited, 47.6% being diagnosed with axSpA (61.5% male, age 33.7 years, symptom duration 7.6 years, B27 positive 52.1%). The following clinical SpA features were non-discriminatory between axSpA/not axSpA: NSAID response, family history of SpA, heel enthesitis, peripheral arthritis, dactylitis. Specificity of the clinical arm and the overall criteria increased from 82.2% to 86.8% without impacting sensitivity. This effect was particularly noteworthy in patients with lower degree of symptomatology (back pain severity <5/10, specificity increases from 76.7% to 90.7%), short symptom duration (<5 years, specificity increases from 78% to 84.7%), and in females (specificity increases from 80.6% to 86.1%).

Conclusion:

In a prospective cohort with a high pre-test probability of axSpA certain clinical SpA features were not helpful in discriminating a diagnosis of SpA from not-SpA. Deletion of these features from the list of SpA features used in the ASAS classification criteria enhanced the performance of the criteria, especially in female patients and those with early disease.

References:

[1]Rudwaleit et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68: 777-83

Patient CategoryNumberASAS criteriaImaging armClinical armSenSpecSenSpecSensSpecAll patients2466582.236.897.750.482.2High confidence in diagnosis19073.884.547.598.256.384.5Patients with back pain ≥5/1016563.384.934.298.851.984.9Patients with back pain <58168.476.742.195.347.476.7Patients with symptom duration ≥5 years10371.285.735.697.156.285.7Patients with symptom duration <5 years14354.57838.698.340.978Males12968.184.247.298.248.684.2Females1176080.62097.253.380.6After deletion of ‘NSAID response’, ‘Family Hx SpA’, ‘heel enthesitis’, ‘peripheral arthritis’, ‘dactylitis’ SpA featuresAll patients2466586.836.897.750.486.8High confidence in diagnosis19073.887.347.598.256.387.3Patients with back pain ≥5/1016563.384.934.298.851.984.9Patients with back pain <58168.490.742.195.347.490.7Patients with symptom duration ≥5 years10371.288.635.697.156.288.6Patients with symptom duration <5 years14354.584.738.698.340.984.7Males12968.187.747.298.248.687.7Females1176086.12097.253.386.1

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Raj Carmona: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared

FRI0298 ASAS MODIFICATION OF THE BERLIN ALGORITHM AND THE DUET ALGORITHM FOR DIAGNOSING AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE SCREENING IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS FOR PSORIASIS, IRITIS, AND COLITIS COHORT

Background:

Patients presenting with back pain and psoriasis, iritis, or colitis, represent a high-risk population for the presence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The Dublin Evaluation Tool (DUET)1, the Berlin algorithm2, and the ASAS modification of this algorithm3are recommended referral strategies aimed at early diagnosis of axSpA. DUET was developed for patients presenting with AAU. Validation of these algorithms in inception cohorts is limited.

Objectives:

1. To assess the performance of referral algorithms for diagnosis of axSpA when tested against the final local rheumatologist diagnosis in an inception cohort of patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain and extra-articular manifestations. 2. To determine whether different criteria for inflammatory back pain (IBP) impact the performance of the algorithms.

Methods:

The multicenter Screening for Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, and Colitis (SASPIC) Study at 11 sites is aimed at early detection of axial SpA in patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain to the rheumatologist. Consecutive patients ≤45 years of age with ≥3 months undiagnosed back pain with any one of psoriasis, acute anterior uveitis (AAU), or colitis diagnosed by the relevant specialist undergo routine clinical evaluation by a rheumatologist for axial SpA. The rheumatologist determines the presence or absence of axial SpA at 3 consecutive stages: 1. After the clinical evaluation; 2. After the results of labs (B27, CRP) and radiography; 3. After the results of MRI evaluation. Final diagnosis by the rheumatologist was used as external standard to test the performance of the algorithms. We tested the following criteria for IBP in the algorithm: ASAS, Berlin, rheumatologist global for likelihood of IBP >5 (0-10 scale), and DUET algorithm in AAU patients.

Results:

A total of 246 patients were recruited, 73 presented with iritis, 46 with psoriasis, and 127 with colitis, 47.6% were diagnosed with axSpA. The diagnosis of axSpA was established in 45.7%, 61.6%, and 40.2% of patients with psoriasis, AAU, and IBD, respectively. The performance of the ASAS-modification of the Berlin algorithm was superior to the original algorithm as reported previously3, primarily for enhanced sensitivity, and this was observed irrespective of the criteria used to define IBP (Table 1). Conversely, the performance of the Duet algorithm in the subset of patients with AAU was substantially worse than previously reported1.

Conclusion:

The ASAS modification of the Berlin algorithm is the preferred referral strategy for patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain to the rheumatologist.

References:

[1]Haroon M, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015; 74: 1990-5

[2]Poddubnyy D, et al. J Rheumatol 2011; 38: 2452–60

[3]Van den Berg R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1646–53

AlgorithmSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)Correct diagnosis (%)False negative (%)False positive (%)Original Berlin(ASAS criteria for IBP)65.376.671.116.712.2Original Berlin(Berlin criteria for IBP)64.476.670.717.112.2Original Berlin(IBP global >5)67.878.173.215.411.4ASAS Modification of Berlin algorithm (ASAS criteria for IBP)73.775.874.812.612.6ASAS Modification of Berlin algorithm (Berlin criteria for IBP)73.775.074.412.613.0ASAS Modification of Berlin algorithm(IBP global >5)76.377.376.811.411.8DUET84.450.071.29.619.2

Disclosure of Interests:

Ulrich Weber: None declared, Georg Kröber: None declared, Raj Carmona: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

Outcomes and Findings of the International Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) BIODAM Cohort for Validation of Soluble Biomarkers in RA

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Soluble Biomarker Working Group initiated an international, multicenter, prospective study, the Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) BIODAM cohort, to generate resources for the clinical validation of candidate biomarkers predictive of radiographic progression. This first report describes the cohort, clinical outcomes, and radiographic findings.

METHODS

Patients with RA from 38 sites in 10 countries starting or changing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or starting tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were followed for 2 years. Participating physicians were required to adhere to a treat-to-target strategy. Biosamples (serum, urine) were acquired every 3 months, radiography of hands and feet every 6 months, and ultrasound of hands and feet every 3 months in a subset. Primary endpoint was radiographic progression by the Sharp/van der Heijde score.

RESULTS

A total of 571 patients were recruited and 439 (76.9%) completed 2-year followup. At baseline, the majority was female (76%), mean age 55.7 years, and mean disease duration 6.5 years. Patients had a mean of 8.4 swollen and 13.6 tender joints, 44-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS44) 3.8, 77.7% rheumatoid factor-positive or anticitrullinated protein antibody-positive. Percentage of patients in DAS and American College of Rheumatology remission at 2 years was 52.2% and 27.1%, respectively. Percentage of patients with radiographic progression (> 0.5) at 1 and 2 years was 38.2% and 59.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The RA BIODAM prospective study succeeded in generating an extensive list of clinical, imaging (2343 radiographs), and biosample (4638 sera) resources that will be made available to expedite the identification and validation of biomarkers for radiographic damage endpoints. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01476956, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01476956).

THU0105 ISOTOPE-LABELING-LC-MS-BASED METABOLIC PROFILING OF MULTIPLE SERUM SAMPLE SETS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HIGH-CONFIDENCE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS BIOMARKERS

Background:

Early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is hampered by suboptimal accuracy of currently available serological biomarkers. Metabolomics may reveal promising biomarker candidates associated with the biomolecular processes of RA. In this work, we applied a high-performance chemical isotope labeling (CIL) LC-MS technique for in-depth profiling of the amine/phenol-submetabolome in serum samples. To avoid false positives and obtain high-confidence biomarker candidates, we analyzed three independent sets of serum samples collected from RA patients and healthy controls to examine the common effects.

Objectives:

We aimed to identify a metabolite signature with consistently high accuracy for RA.

Methods:

Serum samples were taken from 3 RA cohorts, which comprised 50, 49, and 131 RA patients, respectively. Within each cohort, there were sex/age-matched healthy controls: 50 in Cohort 1, 50 in Cohort 2, and 100 in Cohort 3. Among these 446 subjects, 75% were females and the average age was 52.5 years. Amine/phenol-containing metabolites were labeled by12C-dansyl chloride to improve the LC-MS detection. For each cohort, a pooled sample was prepared and labeled by13C-dansyl group to serve as the reference sample for relative quantification. Then the individual samples and the pooled sample were mixed 1:1. Finally, an LC-QTOF-MS platform analyzed the mixtures and output the intensity ratios of12C/13C peak pairs.

Results:

1,149 amine/phenol-containing metabolites were commonly detected across the three sample sets. Among them, 134 were positively identified by our dansyl-labeling standard library, and 141 were matched to predicted retention times and mass values of dansyl-labeled human metabolites. Visualized by the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), the overall amine/phenol-submetabolome demonstrated clear and consistent differences between healthy controls and the RA groups, with cross-validation Q2 = 0.765, 0.745, 0.793, respectively. The selection of significant metabolites was conducted according to the fold change and false-discovery-rate-adjusted Welch’s t-test. Cohort 1 demonstrated 85 metabolites having higher concentrations in the RA samples than the controls, and 89 metabolites with lowered concentrations. The numbers of increased/decreased metabolites in Cohort 2 and 3 were 87/26 and 90/53, respectively. Importantly, there were 59 significantly discriminatory metabolites commonly found in the three data sets (49 increased and 9 decreased). We picked the top three with the highest univariate classification performance to form a biomarker panel. We implemented the linear support vector machine (SVM) to build the classifier and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to measure the performance. The area-under-the-curve (AUC) values (95% confidence interval) were 1.000 (1.000-1.000), 0.992 (0.967-1.000) and 0.902 (0.858-0.945) for the three cohorts, respectively. The results revealed the importance of examining multiple sample sets and even in the worst case (Cohort 3), our biomarker candidates could differentiate RA at 82.5% sensitivity and 82.5% specificity. Particularly, in Cohort 3, there were 30 RA patients negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide and rheumatoid factor, and our metabolite panel demonstrated consistently high performance for differentiating these specific subjects from healthy controls.

Conclusion:

Metabolites showing significant and consistent changes associated with RA have been identified with high discriminative power.

Disclosure of Interests:

Wei Han: None declared, Xiaohang Wang: None declared, Liang Li: None declared, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Edna Hutchings: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB.

Is treat-to-target really working in rheumatoid arthritis? a longitudinal analysis of a cohort of patients treated in daily practice (RA BIODAM)

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether following a treat-to-target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice leads to more patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) meeting the remission target.

METHODS

RA patients from 10 countries starting/changing conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were assessed for disease activity every 3 months for 2 years (RA BIODAM (BIOmarkers of joint DAMage) cohort). Per visit was decided whether a patient was treated according to a T2T-strategy with 44-joint disease activity score (DAS44) remission (DAS44 <1.6) as the target. Sustained T2T was defined as T2T followed in ≥2 consecutive visits. The main outcome was the achievement of DAS44 remission at the subsequent 3-month visit. Other outcomes were remission according to 28-joint disease activity score-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) Boolean definitions. The association between T2T and remission was tested in generalised estimating equations models.

RESULTS

In total 4356 visits of 571 patients (mean (SD) age: 56 (13) years, 78% female) were included. Appropriate application of T2T was found in 59% of the visits. T2T (vs no T2T) did not yield a higher likelihood of DAS44 remission 3 months later (OR (95% CI): 1.03 (0.92 to 1.16)), but sustained T2T resulted in an increased likelihood of achieving DAS44 remission (OR: 1.19 (1.03 to 1.39)). Similar results were seen with DAS28-ESR remission. For more stringent definitions (CDAI, SDAI and ACR/EULAR Boolean remission), T2T was consistently positively associated with remission (OR range: 1.16 to 1.29), and sustained T2T had a more pronounced effect on remission (OR range: 1.49 to 1.52).

CONCLUSION

In daily clinical practice, the correct application of a T2T-strategy (especially sustained T2T) in patients with RA leads to higher rates of remission.

Adherence to Treat-to-target Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Associated Factors: Data from the International RA BIODAM Cohort

Objective.

Compelling evidence supports a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy for optimal outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is limited knowledge regarding the factors that impede implementation of T2T, particularly in a setting where adherence to T2T is protocol-specified. We aimed to assess clinical factors that associate with failure to adhere to T2T.

Methods.

Patients with RA from 10 countries who were starting or changing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or starting tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were followed for 2 years. Participating physicians were required per protocol to adhere to the T2T strategy. Factors influencing adherence to T2T low disease activity (T2T-LDA; 44-joint count Disease Activity Score ≤ 2.4) were analyzed in 2 types of binomial generalized estimating equations models: (1) including only baseline features (baseline model); and (2) modeling variables that inherently vary over time as such (longitudinal model).

Results.

A total of 571 patients were recruited and 439 (76.9%) completed 2-year followup. Failure of adherence to T2T-LDA was noted in 1765 visits (40.5%). In the baseline multivariable model, a high number of comorbidities (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.19), smoking (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08–1.63) and high number of tender joints (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.04) were independently associated with failure to implement T2T, while anticitrullinated protein antibody/rheumatoid factor positivity (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80) was a significant facilitator of T2T. Results were similar in the longitudinal model.

Conclusion.

Lack of adherence to T2T in the RA BIODAM cohort was evident in a substantial proportion despite being a protocol requirement, and this could be predicted by clinical features. [Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) BIODAM cohort; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01476956].

Off-label use of atomoxetine in adults: is it safe?

Atomoxetine has been approved for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in both adults and children. However, it is also being examined for several off-label uses in adults including mood disorders, eating disorders, cognitive dysfunction, and the treatment of addictions. Prior to such use it is important to examine the reported adverse events to see if this represents an appropriate level of risk. This is particularly important in the light of recent warnings from several regulatory bodies about an increase in blood pressure in a significant percentage of patients taking atomoxetine. To understand the risks a literature review was performed, and which identified the following potential problems. The first is that this drug should not be given in patients with known cardiovascular problems, and that all adult patients who receive atomoxetine should be monitored for changes in blood pressure throughout treatment. Secondly, there are several clinical situations in which atomoxetine should be closely monitored, or avoided, including patients who have a history or risk of narrow angle glaucoma, epileptic seizures, Tourette's syndrome, a history of urinary outflow obstruction, or who are pregnant or lactating. In conclusion, the current literature suggests that atomoxetine can be safely used off-label provided the above precautions are taken.

Atomoxetine treatment for nicotine withdrawal: a pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study in adult smokers

BACKGROUND

Many effective treatments for nicotine addiction inhibit noradrenaline reuptake. Three recent studies have suggested that another noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, atomoxetine, may reduce smoking behaviors.

METHODS

The present double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study was carried out over 21 days during which administration of 40 mg atomoxetine was compared to placebo in 17 individuals. Of these, nine were randomized to atomoxetine and eight to placebo. Baseline and weekly measurements were made using the Cigarette Dependence Scale (CDS), Cigarette Withdrawal Scale (CWS), Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU), reported number of cigarettes smoked, and salivary cotinine levels.

RESULTS

The study results showed that all those on placebo completed the study. In marked contrast, of the nine individuals who started on atomoxetine, five dropped out due to side effects. In a completer analysis there were statistically significant differences at 14 and 21 days in several measures between the atomoxetine and placebo groups, including CDS, CWS, QSU, number of cigarettes smoked (decreasing to less than two per day in the treatment group who completed the study), and a trend towards lower mean salivary cotinine levels. However, these differences were not seen in a last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this is the first study to examine the use of atomoxetine in non-psychiatric adult smokers for a period of more than 7 days, and the findings suggest that atomoxetine might be a useful treatment for nicotine addiction. However, the dose used in the current study was too high to be tolerated by many adults, and a dose-finding study is required to determine the most appropriate dose for future studies of this potential treatment for smoking cessation.