Multifactorial intervention to prevent cardiovascular disease in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis:protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular morbidity is a major burden in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In this study, we compare the effect of a targeted, intensified, multifactorial intervention with that of conventional treatment of modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with early RA fulfilling the 2010 American College of Rheumatology European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a prospective, randomised, open label trial with blinded end point assessment and balanced randomisation (1:1) conducted in 10 outpatient clinics in Denmark. The primary end point after 5 years of follow-up is a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and cardiac revascularisation. Secondary outcomes are: the proportion of patients achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <2.5 mmol/L, glycated haemoglobin <48 mmol/mol, blood pressure <140/90 mm  Hg for patients without diabetes and <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes and normoalbuminuria (urinary albumin creatinine ratio <30 mg/g) after 1 year of follow-up and the proportion of patients in each treatment group achieving low RA disease activity after 1 year, defined as a disease activity score C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <3.2 and a DAS28-CRP score <2.6 after 12, 24 and 60 months. Furthermore, all hospitalisations for acute and elective reasons will be adjudicated by the event committee after 12, 24 and 60 months. Three hundred treatment-naive patients with early RA will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either conventional treatment administered and monitored by their general practitioner according to national guidelines (control group) or a stepwise implementation administered and monitored in a quarterly rheumatological nurse-administered set-up of behaviour modification and pharmacological therapy targeting (1) hyperlipidaemia, (2) hypertension, (3) hyperglycaemia and (4) microalbuminuria (intervention group). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol is approved by the local ethics committee (DK-S-2014007) and The Danish Health and Medicines Authority. Dissemination will occur through presentations at National and International conferences and publications in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0224625

A Comparison of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Quantification Using Automated Enzyme Immunoassays and Immunofluorescence Assays

Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) have traditionally been evaluated using indirect fluorescence assays (IFA) with HEp-2 cells. Quantitative immunoassays (EIA) have replaced the use of HEp-2 cells in some laboratories. Here, we evaluated ANA in 400 consecutive and unselected routinely referred patients using IFA and automated EIA techniques. The IFA results generated by two independent laboratories were compared with the EIA results from antibodies against double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), from ANA screening, and from tests of the seven included subantigens. The final IFA and EIA results for 386 unique patients were compared. The majority of the results were the same between the two methods (n = 325, 84%); however, 8% (n = 30) yielded equivocal results (equivocal-negative and equivocal-positive) and 8% (n = 31) yielded divergent results (positive-negative). The results showed fairly good agreement, with Cohen's kappa value of 0.30 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14–0.46), which decreased to 0.23 (95% CI = 0.06–0.40) when the results for dsDNA were omitted. The EIA method was less reliable for assessing nuclear and speckled reactivity patterns, whereas the IFA method presented difficulties detecting dsDNA and Ro activity. The automated EIA method was performed in a similar way to the conventional IFA method using HEp-2 cells; thus, automated EIA may be used as a screening test

Validity and Agreement between the 28-Joint Disease Activity Score Based on C-Reactive Protein and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective. To validate the agreement between the 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) and the 28-joint disease activity score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in a group of Danish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Data from 109 Danish RA patients initiating biologic treatment were analysed at baseline and following one year of treatment. Participants were retrospectively enrolled from a previous cohort study and were considered eligible for this project if CRP and ESR were measured at baseline and at the follow-up visit. To assess the extent of agreement between the two DAS28 definitions, the “European League Against Rheumatism” (EULAR) response criteria based on each definition were calculated with cross-classification. Weighted Kappa (κ) coefficients were calculated, and Bland-Altman plots were used to illustrate degree of agreement between DAS28 definitions. Results. The 75 eligible patients were classified as EULAR good, moderate, and nonresponders with good agreement (61/75; 81%) between DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR (κ=0.75 (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.88)). Conclusions. According to our findings, DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR are interchangeable when assessing RA patients and the two versions of DAS28 are comparable between studies