The efficacy of short-term bridging strategies with high- and low-dose prednisolone on radiographic and clinical outcomes in active early rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

In active early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids are often used for bridging, due to the delayed action of methotrexate. We compare the effect of three bridging strategies including high-dose and low-dose prednisolone on radiographic and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Adult RA patients from one rheumatology hospital and 23 rheumatology practices presenting with moderate/high disease activity were randomised (1:1:1) to 60 mg (high-dose, HDP), 10 mg prednisolone (low-dose, LDP) daily (tapered to 0 mg within 12 weeks), or placebo. The 12-week-intervention period was followed by 40 weeks of therapy at physicians' discretion. The primary outcome was radiographic change at 1 year measured by the modified Sharp/van der Heijde (mSvdH) score. Disease activity was assessed by DAS28 (ESR).

RESULTS

Of 395 randomized patients (n=132 HDP, n=131 LDP, n=132 placebo), 375 (95%) remained in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Mean changes (standard deviation) in mSvdH scores of the 3 groups after one year were comparable: HDP 1.0 (2.0), LDP 1.1 (2.2), placebo 1.1 (1.5) units. The primary analysis showed no superiority of HDP vs. placebo (estimated difference of the mean change -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.5; 0.4)). At week 12, mean DAS28 (ESR) differed: HDP vs. placebo: -0.6 (95%CI -1.0; -0.2); LDP vs. placebo: -0.8 (95% CI -1.2; -0.5). At week 52, there was no significant difference in DAS28 (ESR) between the 3 groups (range 2.6-2.8). Serious adverse events occurred similarly often.

CONCLUSION

Short-term glucocorticoid bridging therapy at high dose showed no benefit with regard to progression of radiographic damage at one year.

The Structured Delegation of Medical Care Services for Patients With Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases

BACKGROUND

In some areas of Germany, there is a shortage of specialist physicians for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Delegating certain medical care services to qualified, specialized rheumatological assistants (SRAs) might be an effective way to supplement the available capacity for specialized medical care.

METHODS

Patients under stable treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were included in this trial, which was designed to demonstrate, in a first step, the non-inferiority of a form of care involving delegation of physicians' tasks to SRAs (team-based care), in comparison to standard care, with respect to changes in disease activity at one year. "Non-inferiority," in this context, means either superiority or else an irrelevant extent of inferiority. In a second step, in case non-inferiority could be shown, the superiority of team-based care with respect to changes in patients' health-related quality of life would be tested as well. Disease activity was measured with the Disease Activity Score 28, and health-related quality of life with the EQ-5D-5L. This was a randomized, multicenter, rater-blinded trial with two treatment arms (team-based care and standard care). The statistical analysis was performed with mixed linear models (DRKS00015526).

RESULTS

From September 2018 to June 2019, 601 patients from 14 rheumatological practices and 3 outpatient rheumatological clinics in the German states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony were randomized to either team-based or standard care. Team-based care was found to be non-inferior to standard care with respect to changes in disease activity (adjusted difference = -0.19; 95% confidence interval [-0.36; -0.02]; p <0.001 for non-inferiority). Superiority with respect to health-related quality of life was not demonstrated (adjusted difference = 0.02 [-0.02; 0.05], p = 0.285).

CONCLUSION

Team-based care, with greater integration of SRAs, is just as good as standard care in important respects. Trained SRAs can effectively support rheumatologists in the care of stable patients with RA or PsA.

SAT0135 COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF TWO BRIDGING SCHEDULES OF PREDNISOLONE IN EARLY ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (CORRA): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disease potentially leading to disability, impaired functioning, and premature death. Most treatment strategies include the early use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate (MTX) which is considered as an established ‘anchor’ therapy. Since it takes some weeks until MTX shows clinical efficacy, glucocorticoids (GC) are widely used for bridging.

Objectives:

The aim of the study “Comparison of the efficacy and safety of two starting dosages of prednisolone in early active RA” (CORRA) is to compare the efficacy and safety of two standard GC bridging schedules vs. placebo in addition to MTX, following a treat-to-target regimen, in early RA.

Methods:

CORRA is an investigator-initiated, randomised, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Adult RA patients who were eligible for inclusion in the trial if they had a disease duration of less than 3 years and moderate or high disease activity were recruited in one hospital and 18 rheumatology practices in Germany. Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive 60 mg or 10 mg prednisolone (Pred) orally once daily (tapered down to 5 mg Pred within 8 weeks) or placebo. The duration of the intervention was 12 weeks, followed by an open observational phase for another 40 weeks. All patients were also treated with MTX (usually starting with 15mg/week followed by a treat-to target scheme). The primary efficacy endpoint was the progression of the radiographic joint damage after one year compared to baseline as determined by the van der Heijde modification of the Sharp score (SHS). Patients, physicians and readers of radiographs were unaware of the treatment assignments. For the comparison of the two GC groups, a non-inferiority margin of 1.3 points of the SHS was set. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numberNCT02000336.

Results:

Between February 2014 and February 2017, 395 patients were included in the trial, 381 of which had sufficient data also of follow-up visits. A total of 129 patients were assigned to the 60 mg Pred group, 124 to 10 mg Pred and 128 to the placebo group. At baseline, mean age was 58 years, 58% were female, 55% were rheumatoid factor and 52% ACPA positive. The mean number of swollen joints was 12.8 out of 28, mean ESR was 33.6 mm/h, mean CRP 2.2 mg/dL, mean DAS 28 6.0. Radiographic damage was 4.9 as measured by the SHS. In the 60 mg, 10 mg Pred group and in the placebo group, the DAS 28 was 2.6, 3.1, 4.5 at week 4 (p<0.001), 3.1, 2.8, 3.6 at week 12 (p<0.001), and 2.7, 2.6, 2.8 at week 52 (p=0.411), respectively. After 12 months the radiographic progression could be determined in 375 patients. In the 60 mg, 10 mg Pred group, and in the placebo group, the mean progression after 1 year was 1.0, 1.0, 1.1 for the total SHS and 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 for the erosion score of the SHS, respectively. Statistical analysis showed non-inferiority of the 10 mg Pred and of the placebo group in comparison to the 60 mg Pred group. Regarding safety issues, there were 10, 5, 6 serious adverse events and 31, 16, 20 adverse events in the MedDRA system organ class “infections and infestations” for the 60 mg Pred, 10 mg Pred, and the placebo group, respectively.

Conclusion:

The bridging schedule starting with 60 mg Pred reduced disease activity better than the 10 mg schedule or placebo only for a short time. The primary outcome structural damage was non-inferior in the 10 mg Pred and the placebo group in comparison to the 60 mg Pred group. Initial advantages of the higher dose may have been compromised by the long follow-up with the possible escalation of therapy due to the treat-to-target regimen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Dietmar Krause Grant/research support from: Pfizer and AbbVie (Abbott), Anna Mai: None declared, Nina Timmesfeld: None declared, Ulrike Trampisch: None declared, Renate Klaassen-Mielke: None declared, Henrik Rudolf: None declared, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Elmar Schmitz: None declared, Claas Fendler: None declared, Claudia Klink: None declared, Stephanie Boeddeker: None declared, Ertan Saracbasi: None declared, Jochen Christoph: None declared, Manfred Igelmann: None declared, Hans Juergen Menne: None declared, Albert Schmid: None declared, Hans J Trampisch: None declared, Juergen Braun Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma

[Practical problems by implementation of vaccination recommendations]

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are known to have an increased risk of infections due to the rheumatic disease itself and due to therapy with immunosuppressive agents. The most important procedure to prevent infections is vaccinations, which are usually well-tolerated. The German National Commission for Immunization ( STIKO) has published recommendations for patients with an immunodeficiency. The German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) has generally implemented these recommendations for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The immunization status of patients with rheumatic diseases is of increasing importance in routine patient care because some of the recently approved drugs may influence the strength of the immune response to vaccination. However, there is almost no information about the current immunization status and the willingness of patients with rheumatic diseases to undergo vaccination procedures in Germany. There are also no epidemiologic data on the implementation of recommendations for immunization at the level of general practitioners. Here we present the results of a prospective study on the efficacy of standardized recommendations for immunization given to different patient groups with rheumatic diseases treated in a hospital specialized in rheumatology.

Glucocorticoid treatment in spondyloarthritis

Spondyloarthritides (SpA) are chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases that usually affect the axial skeleton and may involve entheses and peripheral joints. The main subtypes are ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Other subtypes are reactive arthritis, arthritis associated with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases and undifferentiated axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis. Although SpA were regarded as variants of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) until the 1970s, it is now well established that the pathogenesis of SpA is quite different from that of RA. There is a lack of good clinical studies on glucocorticoid therapy in the SpA. While there is no reasonable doubt that intraarticular local therapies in SpA are as effective as in RA and other forms of arthritis, the evidence for a systemic use is at best marginal. While very high doses may be effective in some patients with AS, the possible value of low-dose corticosteroid therapy in patients with PsA has never been well addressed, with respect to either clinical efficacy or inhibition of radiographic progression. Future studies are needed to clarify this important issue for usual patient care.

Use of methotrexate in inflammatory myopathies

The inflammatory myopathies are a heterogeneous group of diseases including dermatomyositis, polymyositis, and inclusion body myositis. Few clinical trials have been reported in myositis, it is difficult to make definitive recommendations for the treatment of these potentially life threatening diseases. In addition to treatment with corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents and immunomodulatory therapy are used to improve disease control and reduce the long-term side effects of corticosteroids. While these treatments are commonly used in routine clinical practice, the optimal therapeutic regimen remains unclear. However, most patients with dermatomyositis or polymyositis are treated with oral high-dose prednisone combined with azathioprine or methotrexate to facilitate tapering of prednisone.

Clinical measures in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Except for morning stiffness, the clinical symptoms and the history of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) usually differ: the location in RA is mostly the hands and feet, and in AS rather the back. Patients with RA tend to be older (>50 years) and female, while in AS there are somewhat more often male and younger (<30 years) at onset of inflammatory back pain, the leading clinical symptom. The clinical examination of patients in the early phase of the disease is usually easier in RA, although arthralgia and arthritis may be difficult to differentiate. Joint counts are useful in states of high disease activity with polyarticular flares and more established disease. In comparison, in AS, young patients with back pain frequently show normal physical examens, a reduction of lateral spinal flexion and chest expansion are often the earliest signs which are also sensitive to change on therapy with biologics. The cervical spine may be affected in RA and AS - more frequently in advanced disease stages but rather early cases have been reported.

Frequency of triggering bacteria in patients with reactive arthritis and undifferentiated oligoarthritis and the relative importance of the tests used for diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

Reactive arthritis (ReA) triggered by Chlamydia trachomatis or enteric bacteria such as yersinia, salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, or shigella is an important differential diagnosis in patients presenting with the clinical picture of an undifferentiated oligoarthritis (UOA). This study was undertaken to evaluate the best diagnostic approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

52 patients with ReA, defined by arthritis and a symptomatic preceding infection of the gut or the urogenital tract, and 74 patients with possible ReA, defined by oligoarthritis without a preceding symptomatic infection and after exclusion of other diagnoses (UOA), were studied. The following diagnostic tests were applied for the identification of the triggering bacterium: for yersinia induced ReA-stool culture, enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and Widal's agglutination test for detection of antibodies to yersinia; for salmonella or campylobacter induced ReA-stool culture, EIA for the detection of antibodies to salmonella and Campylobacter jejuni; for infections with shigella-stool culture; for infections with Chlamydia trachomatis-culture of the urogenital tract, microimmunofluorescence and immunoperoxidase assay for the detection of antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatis.

RESULTS

A causative pathogen was identified in 29/52 (56%) of all patients with ReA. In 17 (52%) of the patients with enteric ReA one of the enteric bacteria was identified: salmonella in 11/33 (33%) and yersinia in 6/33 (18%). Chlamydia trachomatis was the causative pathogen in 12/19 (63%) of the patients with urogenic ReA. In patients with the clinical picture of UOA a specific triggering bacterium was also identified in 35/74 (47%) patients: yersinia in 14/74 (19%), salmonella in 9/74 (12%), and Chlamydia trachomatis in 12/74 (16%).

CONCLUSIONS

Chlamydia trachomatis, yersinia, and salmonella can be identified as the causative pathogen in about 50% of patients with probable or possible ReA if the appropriate tests are used.

No benefit of long-term ciprofloxacin treatment in patients with reactive arthritis and undifferentiated oligoarthritis: a three-month, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of long-term antibiotic treatment in patients with reactive arthritis (ReA) and undifferentiated oligoarthritis.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-six patients were treated with ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice a day) or placebo for 3 months, in a double-blind, randomized study. Of these patients, 104 (48 treated with ciprofloxacin and 56 treated with placebo) were valid for clinical evaluation: 55 were diagnosed as having ReA with a preceding symptomatic urogenic or enteric infection and 49 as having undifferentiated oligoarthritis. These 2 groups were randomized separately. The triggering bacterium was sought by serology and/or culture. The percentage of patients in remission after 3 months of treatment was chosen as the primary efficacy parameter.

RESULTS

A triggering bacterium could be identified in 52 patients (50%): Chlamydia trachomatis in 13, Yersinia in 14, and Salmonella in 25. No patient was positive for Campylobacter jejuni or for Shigella. No difference in outcome was found between treatment with ciprofloxacin or placebo in the whole group or in subgroups of patients with ReA or undifferentiated oligoarthritis. No difference was seen in patients with a disease duration <3 months. Ciprofloxacin was not effective in Yersinia- or Salmonella-induced arthritis but seemed to be better than placebo in Chlamydia-induced arthritis. This difference was not significant, however, which might be due to the small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Long-term treatment of ReA with ciprofloxacin is not effective; however, it might be useful in the subgroup of patients who have Chlamydia-induced arthritis. This has to be proven in a bigger study focusing on patients with Chlamydia-induced arthritis.

Longitudinal investigation of bacterium-specific synovial lymphocyte proliferation in reactive arthritis and lyme arthritis

BACKGROUND

Antigen-specific lymphocyte proliferation of synovial fluid mononuclear cells (SF MNC) has been reported repeatedly in reactive arthritis and Lyme arthritis; however, less information is available on serial investigations of SF MNC in the same patients.

METHODS

In this study, the synovial lymphocyte proliferation to Yersinia, Chlamydia, Shigella and Borrelia burgdorferi was investigated sequentially at different time points in 28 patients with reactive arthritis, undifferentiated oligoarthritis or Lyme arthritis responding to one of these bacteria.

RESULTS

The same bacterium was always recognized in arthritis triggered by Chlamydia, Shigella or Borrelia, with much variation in the proliferative response. Only the Yersinia-specific responses changed specificity, suggesting that the proliferative response to Yersinia is non-specific in some patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the concept of a local antigen-specific T-cell response in reactive arthritis or Lyme arthritis but not the concept suggested by others that a switch to an autoimmune response takes place in long-standing disease.

Bacteria-specific lymphocyte proliferation in peripheral blood in reactive arthritis and related diseases

The cellular immune response seems to be important for the pathogenesis of reactive arthritis (ReA) and a bacteria-specific lymphocyte proliferation (LP) is often found in synovial fluid (SF) of ReA patients. However, the role of the bacteria-specific LP in peripheral blood (PB) is less well defined. In this study, we investigated 215 paired samples of SF and PB from patients with ReA (n = 65), undifferentiated oligoarthritis (n = 133) and undifferentiated spondylarthropathy (n = 17) to analyse the LP in PB and SF in relation to time. In 24 out of 87 patients (27.6%) with a bacteria-specific LP in synovial fluid, a positive LP to the same bacterium was also found in PB. While a positive LP in SF was found most frequently in the first week of the arthritis, a positive LP in PB was detected in 45% of patients when investigated between weeks 2 and 4 after the onset of arthritis, but was rarely found very early and late in the course of the arthritis. The time point seems to be crucial for the investigation of an LP in PB in patients with ReA.