Exposure to animals and risk of oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a multicenter case-control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An inverse association between early contact with microbial compounds and respiratory allergies is well established. The protective effect of infant contact with animals was also shown for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We aimed to test the association between animal contact in infancy and oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (OA JIA).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Parents of children with OA JIA registered at the Hospital for Pediatric Rheumatology in Garmisch-Partenkirchen were asked to complete a questionnaire. Children who underwent strabismus surgery at six referral centers for ophthalmology served as controls. Children age 6 to 18 years born in Germany without malformations were included (238 cases; response 89% and 832 controls; response 86%). Data were analyzed using logistic regression models after adjusting for potential confounders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Neither place of living (urban vs. rural area), living on a farm, nor regular farm animal (adjusted odds ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.47) or pet contact (0.79; 0.55-1.14) during infancy were clearly related to case status. Allergic rhinitis was inversely related to OA JIA (0.57; 0.34-0.95).</p> <p>Neither place of living (urban vs. rural area), living on a farm, nor regular farm animal (adjusted odds ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.47) or pet contact (0.79; 0.55-1.14) during infancy were related to case status. Allergic rhinitis was inversely related to OA JIA (0.57; 0.34-0.95).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Contact with farm environments in infancy might not be associated with OA JIA. This finding is consistent with previous findings for diabetes mellitus type 1 but contradicts results for IBD and SLE.</p

Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. Because of their slightly higher sensitivity, it has been argued that antibodies to modified citrullinated vimentin (anti-MCV) are superior to antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptides (anti-CCP), while others claim that anti-CCP is preferable because of higher diagnostic specificity for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated IgG-and IgA-class anti-MCV and anti-CCP as diagnostic and prognostic markers in early arthritis. Methods. Two Swedish arthritis populations were examined: 215 patients with early RA (≤ 12 months&apos; duration) from the Swedish TIRA-1 cohort, and 69 patients with very early arthritis (≤ 3 months&apos; duration) from the Kronoberg Arthritis Incidence cohort, in which 22% were diagnosed with RA. IgG anti-CCP and anti-MCV antibodies were analyzed with commercial kits. These tests were modified for IgA-class antibody detection. Results were related to disease course, smoking habits, and shared epitope status. Results. In the TIRA-1 cohort, occurrence of IgG anti-MCV and IgG anti-CCP showed a 93% overlap, although IgG anti-MCV had higher diagnostic sensitivity. Twenty-four percent tested positive for IgA anti-MCV compared to 29% for IgA anti-CCP. In the Kronoberg Arthritis Incidence cohort, 15% tested positive for IgG anti-MCV and 6% for IgA anti-MCV, compared to 10% positive for IgG anti-CCP and 3% positive for IgA anti-CCP, revealing that anti-CCP had higher diagnostic specificity for RA. As previously reported for IgA anti-CCP, IgA anti-MCV antibodies occurred in a small proportion of high-level IgG antibody-positive sera and were associated with a more aggressive disease course. Smokers were more often positive for antibodies to citrullinated proteins, most strikingly among the patients who were IgA anti-MCV-positive. Conclusion. The occurrences of IgG-class anti-MCV and anti-CCP in early RA largely overlap. The sensitivity of anti-MCV is slightly higher, while the diagnostic specificity is higher for anti-CCP. In both instances a positive test predicts an unfavorable disease course, possibly slightly more so for anti-MCV. Although associated with a more active disease over time, IgA-class anti-CCP or anti-MCV do not add any diagnostic advantage

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: Phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

Objective To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Design Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. Setting Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. Participants Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. Interventions Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. Results 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval −5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and −0.6% (−10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. Conclusions All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. SETTING Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intraarticular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI &amp;lt;= 2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. RESULTS 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Funding Agencies|Academy of FinlandAcademy of Finland [258536]; Finska Lakaresallskapet; South-Eastern Health Region, Norway, HUCH Institutional grant, Finland [1159005]; Icelandic Society for Rheumatology; interregional grant from all health regions in Norway; NordForsk [70945]; Regionernes Medicinpulje, Denmark [14/217]; Stockholm County Council, SwedenStockholm County Council [20100490]; Swedish Medical Research CouncilSwedish Medical Research Council (SMRC) [C0634901, D0342301, 2015-00891_5]; Swedish Rheumatism Association; Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland [A2015017]</p