How do people with knee osteoarthritis use osteoarthritis pain medications and does this change over time? Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.

Introduction: The aim of this analysis was to describe comprehensively the cross-sectional and longitudinal patterns of analgesic and nutraceutical medication use for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a contemporary US cohort and to investigate associated demographic and clinical factors. Methods: Baseline, 12, 24 and 36 month data were obtained retrospectively from the National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Initiative. Participants had symptomatic radiographic knee OA. Multiple binary logistic regression models identified characteristics independently associated with the use of analgesics or nutraceuticals. Results: We included 987 subjects (55.9% female, mean age 61.5 years, 71.0% white). At baseline, 68.2% reported frequent use of a conventional analgesic or nutraceutical for joint pain (for more than half of the previous month). Non-prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most frequently reported medications (26.8%), even in those more than 75-years old. Multiple conventional analgesics were used by 11.9%. Frequent analgesic use was more likely in women (odds ratio (OR) 1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.3)) and people with more pain (moderate 1.7 (1.2 to 2.4); severe 3.1 (2.1 to 4.7)); nutraceutical use was less likely in non-whites (0.4 (0.3 to 0.6)), those more than 74-years old (0.6 (0.3 to 0.9)) and those with comorbidities (0.6 (0.5 to 0.9)) and more likely in people with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 4 (2.2 (1.5 to 3.3)). Overall there was no change in the proportion of participants frequently using prescription or over the counter (OTC) analgesics at 36 months, although most people had changed medication type; of those using a traditional analgesic at baseline approximately one third were still using the same type at 36 months (ranging from 26.2% of baseline prescription NSAID users to 40.6% of baseline acetaminophen users). All participants reporting baseline analgesic use also reported 36 month analgesic use. Female participants (OR 95% CI 1.2 to 3.2, P = 0.009), those with high body mass index (1.2 to 4.8, P = 0.010) and those with moderate (1.6 to 2.6, P = 0.090) or severe (1.8 to 12.0, P = 0.002) baseline pain were more likely to use pain medication during the 36 month follow-up period; participants more than 75-years old were less likely (0.2 to 1.0, P = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Most people with knee OA used pharmacological therapies frequently, and use appeared to be according to American College of Rheumatology recommendations. Change in medication type used was common. Persistent non-prescription NSAID use in older people is an area of concern

Responsiveness of clinical and ultrasound outcome measures in musculoskeletal systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective To assess the responsiveness of clinical outcome measures in musculoskeletal SLE compared with ultrasound. Methods A prospective pilot study was conducted in consecutive SLE patients with inflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms. Clinical assessments including SLEDAI, BILAG, 28-tender and swollen joint counts, physician and patient VAS and ultrasound were performed at 0, 2 and 4 weeks following 120mg intramuscular methylprednisolone acetate. Responsiveness was analysed using changes and effect sizes using Cohen’s criteria. Results 20 patients were recruited. 15/20 had clinical swelling at baseline. All clinical and US parameters were significantly improved at week 4 (all p≤0.01). Musculoskeletal-BILAG score improved in 16/20. Musculoskeletal-SLEDAI improved in 7/20. SRI-4 criteria were assessed in 19 patients with SLEDAI>= 4 at baseline met in 9/19 at 4 weeks. Effect sizes at 4 weeks were large (>0.5) for US, physician VAS and BILAG and medium (>0.3) for joint counts and SLEDAI. Large effect sizes for improvement in US GS and PD were observed in both SRI responders (r=-0.51 and -0.56 respectively) and non-responders (r=-0.62 and -0.59) at 4 weeks. Conclusions This is the first study to measure the responsiveness of clinical outcome measures in musculoskeletal SLE against an objective inflammation measure. BILAG and physician VAS were the most responsive clinical instruments. US was highly responsive in musculoskeletal SLE, while SLEDAI and joint counts appeared suboptimal for detection of improvement. These results suggest that clinical trials based on the SLEDAI and SRI-4 may underestimate the efficacy of therapy in SL

Using cardiovascular magnetic resonance to define mechanisms of comorbidity and to measure the effect of biological therapy: the CADERA observational study

Background The VEDERA (Very Early vs. Delayed Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis) randomised controlled trial compared the effect of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy with biologic DMARD (bDMARD) therapy using the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept in treatment-naive, early rheumatoid arthritis patients. The CADERA (Coronary Artery Disease Evaluation in Rheumatoid Arthritis) trial was a bolt-on study in which VEDERA patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to detect preclinical cardiovascular disease at baseline and following treatment. Objectives To evaluate whether or not patients with treatment-naive early rheumatoid arthritis have evidence of cardiovascular disease compared with matched control subjects; whether or not this is modifiable with DMARD therapy; and whether or not bDMARDs confer advantages over csDMARDs. Design The VEDERA patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at 1 and 2 years after treatment. Setting The setting was a tertiary centre rheumatology outpatient clinic and specialist cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging unit. Participants Eighty-one patients completed all assessments at baseline, 71 completed all assessments at 1 year and 56 completed all assessments at 2 years. Patients had no history of cardiovascular disease, had had rheumatoid arthritis symptoms for ≤ 1 year, were DMARD treatment-naive and had a minimum Disease Activity Score-28 of 3.2. Thirty control subjects without cardiovascular disease were approximately individually matched by age and sex to the first 30 CADERA patients. Patients with a Disease Activity Score-28 of ≥ 2.6 at 48 weeks were considered non-responders. Interventions In the VEDERA trial patients were randomised to group 1, immediate etanercept and methotrexate, or group 2, methotrexate ± additional csDMARD therapy in a treat-to-target approach, with a switch to delayed etanercept and methotrexate in the event of failure to achieve clinical remission at 6 months. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was difference in baseline aortic distensibility between control subjects and the early rheumatoid arthritis group and the baseline to year 1 change in aortic distensibility in the early rheumatoid arthritis group. Secondary outcome measures were myocardial perfusion reserve, left ventricular strain and twist, left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular mass. Results Baseline aortic distensibility [geometric mean (95% confidence interval)] was significantly reduced in patients (n = 81) compared with control subjects (n = 30) [3.0 × 10–3/mmHg (2.7 × 10–3/mmHg to 3.3 × 10–3/mmHg) vs. 4.4 × 10–3/mmHg (3.7 × 10–3/mmHg to 5.2 × 10–3/mmHg), respectively; p < 0.001]. Aortic distensibility [geometric mean (95% confidence interval)] improved significantly from baseline to year 1 across the whole patient cohort (n = 81, with imputation for missing values) [3.0 × 10–3/mmHg (2.7 × 10–3/mmHg to 3.4 × 10–3/mmHg) vs. 3.6 × 10–3/mmHg (3.1 × 10–3/mmHg to 4.1 × 10–3/mmHg), respectively; p < 0.001]. No significant difference in aortic distensibility improvement between baseline and year 1 was seen in the following comparisons (geometric means): group 1 (n = 40 at baseline) versus group 2 (n = 41 at baseline): 3.8 × 10–3/mmHg versus 3.4 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.49; combined groups 1 and 2 non-responders (n = 38) versus combined groups 1 and 2 responders (n = 43): 3.5 × 10–3/mmHg versus 3.6 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.87; group 1 non-responders (n = 17) versus group 1 responders (n = 23): 3.6 × 10–3/mmHg versus 3.9 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.73. There was a trend towards a 10–30% difference in aortic distensibility between (group 1) responders who received first-line etanercept (n = 23) and (group 2) responders who never received etanercept (n = 13): 3.9 × 10–3/mmHg versus 2.8 × 10–3/mmHg, p = 0.19; ratio 0.7 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.2), p = 0.19; ratio adjusted for baseline aortic distensibility 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.2), p = 0.29; ratio fully adjusted for baseline characteristics 0.9 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.4), p = 0.56. Conclusions The CADERA establishes evidence of the vascular changes in early rheumatoid arthritis compared with controls and shows improvement of vascular changes with rheumatoid arthritis DMARD therapy. Response to rheumatoid arthritis therapy does not add further to modification of cardiovascular disease but, within the response to either strategy, etanercept/methotrexate may confer greater benefits over standard methotrexate/csDMARD therapy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership, and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY, USA) supported the parent study, VEDERA, through an investigator-sponsored research grant reference WS1092499

P193 USEFUL I: musculoskeletal ultrasound to identify patients with lupus arthritis with better response to therapy

Background In SLE, musculoskeletal manifestations have an impact on quality of life, disability and clinical trial outcomes, but are harder to assess than in RA and PsA. We previously showed that joint swelling lacks sensitivity, specificity and responsiveness compared to ultrasound. USEFUL was a multicentre longitudinal study to determine clinical features predicting ultrasound synovitis and whether patients with ultrasound synovitis respond better to therapy. Methods SLE patients were recruited if the referring physician deemed they had inflammatory pain warranting treatment. Swollen joints were not required. At baseline, physicians recorded the features that led them to diagnose inflammatory pain and features of concurrent fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. Stable doses of prednisolone (≤5 mg/day), antimalarials or immunosuppressants were allowed. Participants received depomedrone 120 mg IM then were assessed at 0, 2 and 6 weeks for 66/68 swollen and tender joint counts, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K, physician global and MSK-VAS, inflammatory markers, patient pain and disease activity-VAS, HAQ-DI, LupusQoL, ultrasound of hands and wrists (blinded to patient and clinical assessor). An internal pilot determined the primary endpoint: EMS-VAS at 2 weeks (adjusted for baseline) between patients with ultrasound-synovitis vs. normal ultrasound at baseline. Sensitivity analyses adjusted for prednisolone and immunosuppressants. Results 122/133 patients recruited completed all visits. There was significant disagreement between clinical examination and ultrasound. 78/133 had ultrasound synovitis; 68% of these had ≥1 swollen joint. Of 66/133 patients with ≥ 1 swollen joint, 20% had normal ultrasound. Ultrasound-synovitis was more likely with joint swelling, a symmetrical small joint distribution and active serology. Physician-determined EMS, other lupus features or prior response to therapy were not associated. Fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis did not reduce the probability of ultrasound synovitis. In the full analysis set (n=133) there was no difference in EMS VAS at 2 weeks according to ultrasound synovial status as baseline (difference -8 mm, 95% CI -19, 4 mm, p=0.178). 32 patients had fibromyalgia. After excluding these patients, we found a statistically and clinically significantly better clinical response to depomedrone in patients with ultrasound-synovitis at baseline (baseline-adjusted EMS VAS at 2 weeks -12 mm, 95% CI -24, 0 mm, p=0.049). This difference was greater in the treatment-adjusted sensitivity analysis (-12.8 (95% CI -22, -3 mm), p=0.007) and the per-protocol-adjusted sensitivity analysis (-14.8 mm (95% CI -20.8, -8.8 mm), p<0.001). Patient with ultrasound synovitis had higher rates of improvement in the musculoskeletal BILAG-2004 (56% vs. 26%, p=0.09) and SLEDAI-2K (37% vs. 15%, p=0.03). Conclusions In lupus arthritis distribution and serology, but not other features, help identify ultrasound-synovitis. Ultrasound-synovitis was independent of features of fibromyalgia, but fibromyalgia confounded assessment of response. Excluding fibromyalgia, response to therapy was better in patients with abnormal ultrasound compared to normal. Ultrasound should be used to select patients for therapy and clinical trials, especially when there are inflammatory symptoms without swollen joints

Publisher Correction: A novel two-score system for interferon status segregates autoimmune diseases and correlates with clinical features

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has been fixed in the paper

Prediction of autoimmune connective tissue disease in an at-risk cohort: prognostic value of a novel two-score system for interferon status

Objective: To evaluate clinical, interferon and imaging predictors of progression from ‘At Risk’ to autoimmune connective tissue diseases (AI-CTDs). Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in At-Risk of AI-CTD (defined as antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive; ≤1 clinical systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) criterion; symptom duration <12 months and treatment-naïve). Bloods and skin biopsy (non-lesional) were analysed for two interferon-stimulated gene expression scores previously described (IFN-Score-A and IFN-Score-B). Forty-nine healthy controls (HCs) and 114 SLE were used as negative and positive controls. Musculoskeletal ultrasound was performed. Progression was defined by meeting classification criteria for AI-CTDs at 12 months. Results: 118 individuals with 12-month follow-up were included. Of these, 19/118 (16%) progressed to AI-CTD (SLE=14, primary Sjogren’s=5). At baseline, both IFN scores differed among At-Risk, HCs and SLE groups (p<0.001) and both were elevated in At-Risk who progressed to AI-CTD at 12 months versus non-progressors, to a greater extent for IFN-Score-B (fold difference (95% CI) 3.22 (1.74 to 5.95), p<0.001) than IFN-Score-A (2.94 (1.14 to 7.54); p=0.018). Progressors did not have significantly greater baseline clinical characteristics or ultrasound findings. Fold difference between At-Risk and HCs for IFN-Score-A was markedly greater in skin than blood. In multivariable logistic regression, only family history of autoimmune rheumatic disease, OR 8.2 (95% CI 1.58 to 42.53) and IFN-Score-B, 3.79 (1.50–9.58) increased the odds of progression. Conclusion: A two-factor interferon score and family history predict progression from ANA positivity to AI-CTD. These interferon scores may allow stratification of individuals At-Risk of AI-CTD permitting early intervention for disease prevention and avoid irreversible organ damage

B cell tetherin: a flow‐cytometric cell‐specific assay for response to Type‐I interferon predicts clinical features and flares in SLE

Objective: Type I interferon (IFN-I) responses are broadly associated with autoimmune disease including SLE. Given the cardinal role of autoantibodies in SLE, we investigated whether a B cell-specific IFN assay might correlate with SLE activity. Methods: B cells and PBMCs were stimulated with IFN-I and IFN-II. Gene expression was scrutinized for pathway-related membrane protein expression. A flow-cytometric assay for tetherin (CD317), an IFN-induced protein ubiquitously expressed on leucocytes, was validated in vitro then clinically against SLE diagnosis, plasmablast expansion, and BILAG-2004 score in a discovery cohort (156 SLE; 30 RA; 22 healthy controls). A second longitudinal validation cohort of 80 patients was also evaluated for SLE flare prediction. Results: In vitro, a close cell-specific and dose-responsive relationship between IFN-I responsive genes and cell surface tetherin in all immune subsets existed. Tetherin expression on multiple cell subsets was selectively responsive to stimulation with IFN-I compared to IFN-II and -III. In patient samples from the discovery cohort memory B-cell tetherin was best associated with diagnosis (SLE/HC: effect size=0.11, p=0.003; SLE/RA: effect size=0.17,