Baseline Objective Inflammation by Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Predictor of Therapeutic Benefit in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis With Poor Prognosis

Objective: High magnetic resonance imaging (MRI )–detected inflammation is associated with greater progression and poorer outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA ). This analysis aimed to determine if baseline MRI inflammation was related to clinical response and remission in the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment (AVERT ) study. Methods: AVERT was a phase III b, randomized, controlled trial with a 12‐month, double‐blind treatment period enrolling patients with early (≤2 years' duration), anti‐citrullinated peptide–positive methotrexate (MTX )‐naive RA . In this post hoc analysis, patients in the abatacept plus MTX (n = 114) and MTX (n = 111) arms with available MRI results were stratified into low and high baseline MRI inflammation groups based on previously developed cutoffs of synovitis and osteitis on unilateral hand–wrist contrast‐enhanced MRI . Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI ) remission (≤3.3), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI ) remission (≤2.8), Boolean remission, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C‐reactive protein level (<2.6) were assessed. Results: Overall, 100 of 225 patients (44.4%) had high baseline MRI inflammation. In patients with high baseline MRI inflammation, a significantly greater proportion achieved remission at 12 months with abatacept plus MTX versus MTX across SDAI (45.1% versus 16.3%; P = 0.0022), CDAI (47.1% versus 20.4%; P = 0.0065), and Boolean indices (39.2% versus 16.3%; P = 0.0156). In patients with low baseline MRI inflammation, remission rates were not significantly different with abatacept plus MTX versus MTX (SDAI : 39.7% versus 32.3%; P = 0.4961). Conclusion: In seropositive, MTX ‐naive patients with early RA and presence of objectively measured high inflammation by MRI , indicating poor prognosis, remission rates were higher with abatacept plus MTX treatment versus MTX

Patterns and determinants of response to novel therapies in juvenile and adult-onset polyarthritis

Biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have revolutionized the management of multiple rheumatic inflammatory conditions. Amongst these, polyarticular Juvenile-Idiopathic Arthritis (pJIA) and Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) display similarities in terms of disease pathophysiology and response pattern to b/tsDMARDs. Indeed, therapeutic efficacy of novel targeted drugs is variable among individual patients, in both RA and pJIA. Mechanisms and determinants of this heterogeneous response are diverse and complex, such that development of true “precision”-medicine strategies has proven highly challenging. In this review, we will discuss pathophysiological, patient-specific, drug-specific and environmental factors contributing to individual therapeutic response in polyarticular JIA in comparison to what is known in RA. Although some biomarkers have been identified that stratify for the likelihood of either therapeutic response or non-response, few have proved useful in clinical practice so far, likely due to the complexity of treatment-response mechanisms. Consequently, we propose a pragmatic, patient-centered and clinically-based approach, i.e. personalized instead of biomarker-based precision medicine in JIA

The Belgian MIRA (MabThera In Rheumatoid Arthritis) registry: clues for the optimization of rituximab treatment strategies

This study describes the results of the Belgian 'MabThera In Rheumatoid Arthritis (MIRA)' registry: effectiveness, safety and evaluation of the current retreatment practice on the background of the Belgian reimbursement criteria for rituximab

Impact of T-cell costimulation modulation in patients with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis or very early rheumatoid arthritis: a clinical and imaging study of abatacept (the ADJUST trial)

Several agents provide treatment for established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but a crucial therapeutic goal is to delay/prevent progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) or very early RA

Baricitinib inhibits structural joint damage progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis – a comprehensive review

Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 that has proved effective and well tolerated in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an extensive programme of clinical studies of patients with moderate-to-severe disease. In a phase 2b dose-ranging study of baricitinib in combination with traditional disease-modifyingantirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA patients, magnetic resonance imaging showed that baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mgonce daily provided dose-dependent suppression of synovitis, osteitis, erosion and cartilage loss at weeks 12 and 24versus placebo. These findings correlated with clinical outcomes and were confirmed in three phase 3 studies (RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD) using X-rays to assess structural joint damage. In patients naïve to DMARDs (RA-BEGINstudy), baricitinib 4 mg once daily as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate produced smaller mean changesin structural joint damage than methotrexate monotherapy at week 24. Differences versus methotrexate werestatistically significant for combined therapy. In patients responding inadequately to methotrexate (RA-BEAM study),baricitinib 4 mg plus background methotrexate significantly inhibited structural joint damage at week 24 versus placebo, and the results were comparable to those observed with adalimumab plus background methotrexate. Inpatients responding inadequately to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; RA-BUILD study), baricitinib 4 mgagain significantly inhibited radiographic progression compared with placebo at week 24. Benefits were also observedwith baricitinib 2 mg once daily, but the effects of baricitinib 4 mg were more robust. The positive effects of baricitinib4 mg on radiographic progression continued over 1 and 2 years in the long-term extension study RA-BEYOND, withsimilar effects to adalimumab and significantly greater effects than placebo. Findings from the phase 3 studies ofpatients with RA were supported by preclinical studies, which showed that baricitinib has an osteoprotective effect, increasing mineralisation in bone-forming cells. In conclusion, baricitinib 4 mg once daily inhibits radiographic jointdamage progression in patients with moderate-to-severe RA who are naïve to DMARDs or respond inadequately to csDMARDs, including methotrexate, and the beneficial effects are similar to those observed with adalimumab

The 6-month safety and efficacy of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who underwent a washout after anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy or were directly switched to abatacept: the ARRIVE trial

To assess the safety, tolerability and efficacy of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had failed anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy and were switched to abatacept directly or after completing washout

Rituximab versus tocilizumab and B-cell status in TNF-alpha inadequate-responder rheumatoid arthritis patients: the R4-RA RCT

BackgroundAlthough biological therapies have transformed the outlook for those with rheumatoid arthritis, there is a lack of any meaningful response in approximately 40% of patients. The role of B cells in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis is well recognised and is supported by the clinical efficacy of the B-cell-depleting agent rituximab (MabThera, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland). Rituximab is licensed for use in rheumatoid arthritis following failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy. However, over 50% of patients show low/absent synovial B-cell infiltration, suggesting that, in these patients, inflammation is driven by alternative cell types. This prompted us to test the hypothesis that, in synovial biopsy B-cell-poor patients, tocilizumab (RoActemra, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) (targeting interleukin 6) is superior to rituximab (targeting CD20+/B cells).DesignThe R4–RA (A Randomised, open-labelled study in anti-TNFalpha inadequate responders to investigate the mechanisms for Response, Resistance to Rituximab versus Tocilizumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis patients) trial is a 48-week Phase IV, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in 19 European centres that recruited patients failing on or intolerant to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and at least one tumour necrosis factor inhibitor.ParticipantsSynovial tissue was obtained at trial entry and classified histologically as B-cell rich or B-cell poor to inform balanced stratification. Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to receive standard therapy with rituximab or tocilizumab. B-cell-poor/-rich molecular classification was also carried out. The study was powered to test the superiority of tocilizumab over rituximab at 16 weeks in the B-cell-poor population.Main outcome measuresThe primary end point was defined as an improvement in the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of ≥ 50% from baseline. In addition, patients were considered to be non-responders if they did not reach an improvement in CDAI score of ≥ 50% and a CDAI score of ResultsIn total, 164 patients were randomised: 83 patients received rituximab and 81 received tocilizumab. Eighty-one out of 83 rituximab patients and 73 out of 81 tocilizumab patients completed treatment up to week 16 (primary end point). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups. In the histologically classified B-cell-poor population (n = 79), no significant difference was observed in the primary outcome, an improvement in CDAI score of ≥ 50% from baseline (risk ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.96). A supplementary analysis of the CDAI-MTR, however, did reach statistical significance (risk ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.78). In addition, when B-cell-poor classification was determined molecularly, both the primary end point and the CDAI-MTR were statistically significant (risk ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.91, and risk ratio 4.12, 95% confidence interval 1.55 to 11.01, respectively). Moreover, a larger number of secondary end points achieved significance when classified molecularly than when classified histologically. In the B-cell-rich population, there was no significant difference between treatments in the majority of both primary and secondary end points. There were more adverse events and serious adverse events, such as infections, in the tocilizumab group than in the rituximab group.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first biopsy-based, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of rheumatoid arthritis. We were unable to demonstrate that tocilizumab was more effective than rituximab in patients with a B-cell-poor pathotype in our primary analysis. However, superiority was shown in most of the supplementary and secondary analyses using a molecular classification. These analyses overcame possible unavoidable weaknesses in our original study plan, in which the histological method of determining B-cell status may have misclassified some participants and our chosen primary outcome was insufficiently sensitive. Given the significant results observed using the molecular classification, future research will focus on refining this stratification method and evaluating its clinical utility.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN97443826.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and poor prognostic factors. Methods: In this double-blind, phase IIIb study, patients with RA for 2 years or less were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive abatacept (similar to 10 mg/kg) plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were methotrexate-naive and seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (CCP) type 2 or both and had radiographic evidence of joint erosions. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-defined remission (C-reactive protein) and joint damage progression (Genant-modified Sharp total score; TS) at year 1. Safety was monitored throughout. Results: At baseline, patients had a mean DAS28 of 6.3, a mean TS of 7.1 and mean disease duration of 6.5 months; 96.5% and 89.0% of patients were RF or anti-CCP2 seropositive, respectively. At year 1, a significantly greater proportion of abatacept plus methotrexate-treated patients achieved remission (41.4% vs 23.3%; p<0.001) and there was significantly less radiographic progression (mean change in TS 0.63 vs 1.06; p = 0.040) versus methotrexate alone. Over 1 year, the frequency of adverse events (84.8% vs 83.4%), serious adverse events (7.8% vs 7.9%), serious infections (2.0% vs 2.0%), autoimmune disorders (2.3% vs 2.0%) and malignancies (0.4% vs 0%) was comparable for abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone. Conclusions: In a methotrexate-naive population with early RA and poor prognostic factors, the combination of abatacept and methotrexate provided significantly better clinical and radiographic efficacy compared with methotrexate alone and had a comparable, favourable safety profile