Depth- and range-dependent variation in the performance of aquatic telemetry systems: Understanding and predicting the susceptibility of acoustic tag-receiver pairs to close proximity detection interference

BACKGROUND: Passive acoustic telemetry using coded transmitter tags and stationary receivers is a popular method for tracking movements of aquatic animals. Understanding the performance of these systems is important in array design and in analysis. Close proximity detection interference (CPDI) is a condition where receivers fail to reliably detect tag transmissions. CPDI generally occurs when the tag and receiver are near one another in acoustically reverberant settings. Here we confirm transmission multipaths reflected off the environment arriving at a receiver with sufficient delay relative to the direct signal cause CPDI. We propose a ray-propagation based model to estimate the arrival of energy via multipaths to predict CPDI occurrence, and we show how deeper deployments are particularly susceptible. METHODS: A series of experiments were designed to develop and validate our model. Deep (300 m) and shallow (25 m) ranging experiments were conducted using Vemco V13 acoustic tags and VR2-W receivers. Probabilistic modeling of hourly detections was used to estimate the average distance a tag could be detected. A mechanistic model for predicting the arrival time of multipaths was developed using parameters from these experiments to calculate the direct and multipath path lengths. This model was retroactively applied to the previous ranging experiments to validate CPDI observations. Two additional experiments were designed to validate predictions of CPDI with respect to combinations of deployment depth and distance. Playback of recorded tags in a tank environment was used to confirm multipaths arriving after the receiver\u27s blanking interval cause CPDI effects. RESULTS: Analysis of empirical data estimated the average maximum detection radius (AMDR), the farthest distance at which 95% of tag transmissions went undetected by receivers, was between 840 and 846 m for the deep ranging experiment across all factor permutations. From these results, CPDI was estimated within a 276.5 m radius of the receiver. These empirical estimations were consistent with mechanistic model predictions. CPDI affected detection at distances closer than 259-326 m from receivers. AMDR determined from the shallow ranging experiment was between 278 and 290 m with CPDI neither predicted nor observed. Results of validation experiments were consistent with mechanistic model predictions. Finally, we were able to predict detection/nondetection with 95.7% accuracy using the mechanistic model\u27s criterion when simulating transmissions with and without multipaths. DISCUSSION: Close proximity detection interference results from combinations of depth and distance that produce reflected signals arriving after a receiver\u27s blanking interval has ended. Deployment scenarios resulting in CPDI can be predicted with the proposed mechanistic model. For deeper deployments, sea-surface reflections can produce CPDI conditions, resulting in transmission rejection, regardless of the reflective properties of the seafloor

A Pauci-Immune Synovial Pathotype Predicts Inadequate Response to TNF alpha-Blockade in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Objectives: To assess whether the histopathological features of the synovium before starting treatment with the TNFi certolizumab-pegol could predict clinical outcome and examine the modulation of histopathology by treatment. Methods: Thirty-seven RA patients fulfilling UK NICE guidelines for biologic therapy were enrolled at Barts Health NHS trust and underwent synovial sampling of an actively inflamed joint using ultrasound-guided needle biopsy before commencing certolizumab-pegol and after 12-weeks. At 12-weeks, patients were categorized as responders if they had a DAS28 fall >1.2. A minimum of 6 samples was collected for histological analysis. Based on H&E and immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining for CD3 (T cells), CD20 (B cells), CD138 (plasma cells), and CD68 (macrophages) patients were categorized into three distinct synovial pathotypes (lympho-myeloid, diffuse-myeloid, and pauci-immune). Results: At baseline, as per inclusion criteria, DAS28 mean was 6.4 \ub1 0.9. 94.6% of the synovial tissue was retrieved from the wrist or a metacarpophalangeal joint. Histological pathotypes were distributed as follows: 58% lympho-myeloid, 19.4% diffuse-myeloid, and 22.6% pauci-immune. Patients with a pauci-immune pathotype had lower levels of CRP but higher VAS fatigue compared to lympho- and diffuse-myeloid. Based on DAS28 fall >1.2, 67.6% of patients were deemed as responders and 32.4% as non-responders. However, by categorizing patients according to the baseline synovial pathotype, we demonstrated that a significantly higher number of patients with a lympho-myeloid and diffuse-myeloid pathotype in comparison with pauci-immune pathotype [83.3% (15/18), 83.3 % (5/6) vs. 28.6% (2/7), p = 0.022) achieved clinical response to certolizumab-pegol. Furthermore, we observed a significantly higher level of post-treatment tender joint count and VAS scores for pain, fatigue and global health in pauci-immune in comparison with lympho- and diffuse-myeloid patients but no differences in the number of swollen joints, ESR and CRP. Finally, we confirmed a significant fall in the number of CD68+ sublining macrophages post-treatment in responders and a correlation between the reduction in the CD20+ B-cells score and the improvement in the DAS28 at 12-weeks. Conclusions: The analysis of the synovial histopathology may be a helpful tool to identify among clinically indistinguishable patients those with lower probability of response to TNF\u3b1-blockade

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

Long-Term Risk of Arterial Thrombosis after Intracerebral Hemorrhage: MUCH-Italy

BACKGROUND: The identification of patients surviving an acute intracerebral hemorrhage who are at a long-term risk of arterial thrombosis is a poorly defined, crucial issue for clinicians. METHODS: In the setting of the MUCH-Italy (Multicenter Study on Cerebral Haemorrhage in Italy) prospective observational cohort, we enrolled and followed up consecutive 30-day intracerebral hemorrhage survivors to assess the long-term incidence of arterial thrombotic events, to assess the impact of clinical and radiological variables on the risk of these events, and to develop a tool for estimating such a risk at the individual level. Primary end point was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or other arterial thrombotic events. A point-scoring system was generated by the β-coefficients of the variables independently associated with the long-term risk of arterial thrombosis, and the predictive MUCH score was calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. RESULTS: Overall, 1729 patients (median follow-up time, 43 months [25th to 75th percentile, 69.0]) qualified for inclusion. Arterial thrombotic events occurred in 169 (9.7%) patients. Male sex, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, atrial fibrillation, and personal history of coronary artery disease were associated with increased long-term risk of arterial thrombosis, whereas the use of statins and antithrombotic medications after the acute intracerebral hemorrhage was associated with a reduced risk. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the MUCH score predictive validity was 0.716 (95% CI, 0.56-0.81) for the 0- to 1-year score, 0.672 (95% CI, 0.58-0.73) for the 0- to 5-year score, and 0.744 (95% CI, 0.65-0.81) for the 0- to 10-year score. C statistic for the prediction of events that occur from 0 to 10 years was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Intracerebral hemorrhage survivors are at high long-term risk of arterial thrombosis. The MUCH score may serve as a simple tool for risk estimation

History of migraine and volume of brain infarcts: The italian project on stroke at young age (IPSYS)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Migraine has been shown to increase cerebral excitability, promote rapid infarct expansion into tissue with perfusion deficits, and result in larger infarcts in animal models of focal cerebral ischemia. Whether these effects occur in humans has never been properly investigated. METHODS: In a series of consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke, enrolled in the setting of the Italian Project on Stroke at Young Age, we assessed acute as well as chronic infarct volumes by volumetric magnetic resonance imaging, and compared these among different subgroups identified by migraine status. RESULTS: A cohort of 591 patients (male, 53.8%; mean age, 37.5±6.4 years) qualified for the analysis. Migraineurs had larger acute infarcts than non-migraineurs (median, 5.9 cm3 [interquartile range (IQR), 1.4 to 15.5] vs. 2.6 cm3 [IQR, 0.8 to 10.1], P<0.001), and the largest volumes were observed in patients with migraine with aura (median, 9.0 cm3 [IQR, 3.4 to 16.6]). In a linear regression model, migraine was an independent predictor of increased log (acute infarct volumes) (median ratio [MR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 2.20), an effect that was more prominent for migraine with aura (MR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.88 to 4.54). CONCLUSION: s These findings reinforce the experimental observation of larger acute cerebral infarcts in migraineurs, extend animal data to human disease, and support the hypothesis of increased vulnerability to ischemic brain injury in people suffering migraine

B Cell Synovitis and Clinical Phenotypes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Relationship to Disease Stages and Drug Exposure.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship of synovial B cells to clinical phenotypes at different stages of disease evolution and drug exposure in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Synovial biopsy specimens and demographic and clinical data were collected from 2 RA cohorts (n = 329), one of patients with untreated early RA (n = 165) and one of patients with established RA with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR; n = 164). Synovial tissue was subjected to hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemical staining and semiquantitative assessment for the degree of synovitis (on a scale of 0-9) and of CD20+ B cell infiltrate (on a scale of 0-4). B cell scores were validated by digital image analysis and B cell lineage-specific transcript analysis (RNA-Seq) in the early RA (n = 91) and TNFi-IR (n = 127) cohorts. Semiquantitative CD20 scores were used to classify patients as B cell rich (≥2) or B cell poor (<2). RESULTS: Semiquantitative B cell scores correlated with digital image analysis quantitative measurements and B cell lineage-specific transcripts. B cell-rich synovitis was present in 35% of patients in the early RA cohort and 47.7% of patients in the TNFi-IR cohort (P = 0.025). B cell-rich patients showed higher levels of disease activity and seropositivity for rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody in early RA but not in established RA, while significantly higher histologic synovitis scores in B cell-rich patients were demonstrated in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: We describe a robust semiquantitative histologic B cell score that closely replicates the quantification of B cells by digital or molecular analyses. Our findings indicate an ongoing B cell-rich synovitis, which does not seem to be captured by standard clinimetric assessment, in a larger proportion of patients with established RA than early RA

Stratification of biological therapies by pathobiology in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (STRAP and STRAP-EU): two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, randomised trials

Background Despite highly effective targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, about 40% of patients respond poorly, and predictive biomarkers for treatment choices are lacking. We did a biopsy-driven trial to compare the response to rituximab, etanercept, and tocilizumab in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified for synovial B cell status. Methods STRAP and STRAP-EU were two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, stratified, randomised, phase 3 trials done across 26 university centres in the UK and Europe. Biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR)–European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were included. Following ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy, patients were classified as B cell poor or B cell rich according to synovial B cell signatures and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous rituximab (1000 mg at week 0 and week 2), subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg per week). The primary outcome was the 16-week ACR20 response in the B cell-poor, intention-to-treat population (defined as all randomly assigned patients), with data pooled from the two trials, comparing etanercept and tocilizumab (grouped) versus rituximab. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2014-003529-16 (STRAP) and 2017-004079-30 (STRAP-EU). Findings Between June 8, 2015, and July 4, 2019, 226 patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=73), tocilizumab (n=74), and rituximab (n=79). Three patients (one in each group) were excluded after randomisation because they received parenteral steroids in the 4 weeks before recruitment. 168 (75%) of 223 patients in the intention-to-treat population were women and 170 (76%) were White. In the B cell-poor population, ACR20 response at 16 weeks (primary endpoint) showed no significant differences between etanercept and tocilizumab grouped together and rituximab (46 [60%] of 77 patients vs 26 [59%] of 44; odds ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·47–2·17], p=0·97). No differences were observed for adverse events, including serious adverse events, which occurred in six (6%) of 102 patients in the rituximab group, nine (6%) of 108 patients in the etanercept group, and three (4%) of 73 patients in the tocilizumab group (p=0·53). Interpretation In this biologic-naive population of patients with rheumatoid arthrtitis, the dichotomic classification into synovial B cell poor versus rich did not predict treatment response to B cell depletion with rituximab compared with alternative treatment strategies. However, the lack of response to rituximab in patients with a pauci-immune pathotype and the higher risk of structural damage progression in B cell-rich patients treated with rituximab warrant further investigations into the ability of synovial tissue analyses to inform disease pathogenesis and treatment response. Funding UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis

Stratification of biological therapies by pathobiology in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (STRAP and STRAP-EU): two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, randomised trials

Background: Despite highly effective targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, about 40% of patients respond poorly, and predictive biomarkers for treatment choices are lacking. We did a biopsy-driven trial to compare the response to rituximab, etanercept, and tocilizumab in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified for synovial B cell status. Methods: STRAP and STRAP-EU were two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, stratified, randomised, phase 3 trials done across 26 university centres in the UK and Europe. Biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR)–European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were included. Following ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy, patients were classified as B cell poor or B cell rich according to synovial B cell signatures and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous rituximab (1000 mg at week 0 and week 2), subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg per week). The primary outcome was the 16-week ACR20 response in the B cell-poor, intention-to-treat population (defined as all randomly assigned patients), with data pooled from the two trials, comparing etanercept and tocilizumab (grouped) versus rituximab. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2014-003529-16 (STRAP) and 2017-004079-30 (STRAP-EU). Findings: Between June 8, 2015, and July 4, 2019, 226 patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=73), tocilizumab (n=74), and rituximab (n=79). Three patients (one in each group) were excluded after randomisation because they received parenteral steroids in the 4 weeks before recruitment. 168 (75%) of 223 patients in the intention-to-treat population were women and 170 (76%) were White. In the B cell-poor population, ACR20 response at 16 weeks (primary endpoint) showed no significant differences between etanercept and tocilizumab grouped together and rituximab (46 [60%] of 77 patients vs 26 [59%] of 44; odds ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·47–2·17], p=0·97). No differences were observed for adverse events, including serious adverse events, which occurred in six (6%) of 102 patients in the rituximab group, nine (6%) of 108 patients in the etanercept group, and three (4%) of 73 patients in the tocilizumab group (p=0·53). Interpretation: In this biologic-naive population of patients with rheumatoid arthrtitis, the dichotomic classification into synovial B cell poor versus rich did not predict treatment response to B cell depletion with rituximab compared with alternative treatment strategies. However, the lack of response to rituximab in patients with a pauci-immune pathotype and the higher risk of structural damage progression in B cell-rich patients treated with rituximab warrant further investigations into the ability of synovial tissue analyses to inform disease pathogenesis and treatment response. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis

Stratification of biological therapies by pathobiology in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (STRAP and STRAP-EU): two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Despite highly effective targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, about 40% of patients respond poorly, and predictive biomarkers for treatment choices are lacking. We did a biopsy-driven trial to compare the response to rituximab, etanercept, and tocilizumab in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified for synovial B cell status. METHODS: STRAP and STRAP-EU were two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, stratified, randomised, phase 3 trials done across 26 university centres in the UK and Europe. Biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR)–European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were included. Following ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy, patients were classified as B cell poor or B cell rich according to synovial B cell signatures and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous rituximab (1000 mg at week 0 and week 2), subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg per week). The primary outcome was the 16-week ACR20 response in the B cell-poor, intention-to-treat population (defined as all randomly assigned patients), with data pooled from the two trials, comparing etanercept and tocilizumab (grouped) versus rituximab. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2014-003529-16 (STRAP) and 2017-004079-30 (STRAP-EU). FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2015, and July 4, 2019, 226 patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=73), tocilizumab (n=74), and rituximab (n=79). Three patients (one in each group) were excluded after randomisation because they received parenteral steroids in the 4 weeks before recruitment. 168 (75%) of 223 patients in the intention-to-treat population were women and 170 (76%) were White. In the B cell-poor population, ACR20 response at 16 weeks (primary endpoint) showed no significant differences between etanercept and tocilizumab grouped together and rituximab (46 [60%] of 77 patients vs 26 [59%] of 44; odds ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·47–2·17], p=0·97). No differences were observed for adverse events, including serious adverse events, which occurred in six (6%) of 102 patients in the rituximab group, nine (6%) of 108 patients in the etanercept group, and three (4%) of 73 patients in the tocilizumab group (p=0·53). INTERPRETATION: In this biologic-naive population of patients with rheumatoid arthrtitis, the dichotomic classification into synovial B cell poor versus rich did not predict treatment response to B cell depletion with rituximab compared with alternative treatment strategies. However, the lack of response to rituximab in patients with a pauci-immune pathotype and the higher risk of structural damage progression in B cell-rich patients treated with rituximab warrant further investigations into the ability of synovial tissue analyses to inform disease pathogenesis and treatment response. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis

Rituximab versus tocilizumab and b-cell status in tnf-alpha inadequate-responder rheumatoid arthritis patients: the r4-ra rct

Background Although 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). Design The 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. Participants Synovial 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 measures The 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 < 10.1, defined for simplicity as CDAI major treatment response (CDAI-MTR). Secondary outcomes included the assessment of CDAI response in the B-cell-rich cohort, in which the non-inferiority of rituximab compared with tocilizumab was evaluated. Safety data up to week 48 are reported. Results In 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. Conclusion To 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