Hepatitis-E-Virus-Infektion bei einem Patienten mit rheumatoider Arthritis unter Baricitinib-Therapie

A patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was presented, who developed an infection with the hepatitis E virus (HEV) under treatment with the Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and 2 inhibitor baricitinib. In the 3‑month routine check-up the patient had clearly elevated transaminase levels with an inconspicuous physical examination. The investigations detected antibodies of IgM and IgG classes against HEV and an elevated C‑reactive protein (CRP) level as well as HEV-RNA by real-time PCR, which is indicative of a recent HEV infection. Baricitinib was immediately discontinued. The extensive anamnesis revealed that the patient had eaten beef tartar some days before the consultation, without the occurrence of gastrointestinal symptoms or fever. In the further course the patient completely recovered and the liver function tests and the CRP levels normalized within 3 months. Baricitinib was then restarted. So far only few reports have been published on HEV infections in RA patients who have been treated with JAK inhibitors

Autoinflammation leading to autoimmunity in adult-onset Still’s disease: more than simple coincidence?

Background!#!Adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients with endocarditis, with or without a cardiac decompensation.!##!Case presentation!#!We report the case of a 68-year-old Caucasian male diagnosed with AOSD after an initial acute manifestation of endocarditis with severe aortic acute manifestation of endocarditis with severe aortic insufficiency. The histological findings revealed Libman-Sacks endocarditis. He was treated with the IL-1 receptor inhibitor anakinra. Two years later the patient developed a symptomatic dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction (23.5%) and functional anti-beta-1-adrenergic receptor antibodies, which was initially treated with plasmapheresis; anakinra was maintained. While his AOSD symptoms responded well, our patient presented with recurrent arthritis in multiple joints, dual-energy CT showed urate deposition compatible with a gouty arthropathy. Over 7 years, he presented with recurrent episodes of arthritis and the adjustment of dosages of colchicine and febuxostat was needed. In 2018, our patient died due to a deterioration of his underlying cardiac disease.!##!Conclusions!#!Only two cases with initial endocarditis prior to AOSD diagnosis have been published, and we are not aware of any other cases reporting -β1AR-Ab development with DCM and gout in the setting of AOSD treated with anakinra

Perforin Expression by CD4+ Regulatory T Cells Increases at Multiple Sclerosis Relapse: Sex Differences

Abstract: Multiple sclerosis (MS) represents the leading cause of neurological deficit among young adults, affecting women more frequently than men. In MS, the extent of central nervous system lesions is determined by the net balance between self-reactive and regulatory T-cells at any given time, among other factors, as well as by the effect of inflammatory response. Here, we studied both CD4+ and CD8+ TReg in parallel in blood and CSF during MS relapse. A recruitment of both regulatory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (TReg) within the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) takes place during MS relapse. Not previously described, the presence of CD4+ TReg in CSF was higher in women than in men, which could account for the sexual dimorphism in the incidence of MS. A direct correlation between plasma oestradiol (E2) and IL-2 levels was observed, in line with a putative circuit of E2 and perforin expression by CD4+ TReg playing a role in MS. Also, serum IFN-alpha was higher in females, with direct correlation with serum E2 levels. This is the first study to analyze perforin expression by CD4+ TReg in MS, which was greatly enhanced in CSF

Performance of a Handheld Ultrasound Device to Assess Articular and Periarticular Pathologies in Patients with Inflammatory Arthritis

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and performance of a new handheld ultrasound (HHUS) machine in comparison to a conventional cart-based sonographic machine in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). IA patients with at least one tender and swollen joint count were enrolled. US was performed on the clinically affected joints using a cart-based sonographic device (Samsung HS40) and a HHUS device (Butterfly iQ). One blinded reader scored all images for the presence of erosions, bony enlargement, synovial hypertrophy, joint effusion, bursitis, tenosynovitis, and enthesitis. Synovitis was graded (B mode and power Doppler (PD)) by the 4-level EULAR-OMERACT scale. To avoid bias by the blinded reader, we included 67 joints of two healthy volunteers in the evaluation. We calculated the overall concordance and the concordance by type of joint and pathological finding. We also measured the time required for the US examination per joint with both devices. Thirty-two patients (20 with RA, 10 with PsA, and one each with gout and SLE-associated arthritis) were included, and 186 joints were examined. The overall raw concordance in B mode was 97% (κappa 0.90, 95% CI (0.89, 0.94)). In B mode, no significant differences were found in relation to type of joint or pathological finding examined. The PD mode of the HHUS device did not detect any PD signal, whereas the cart-based device detected a PD signal in 61 joints (33%). The portable device did not offer any time savings compared to the cart-based device (47.0 versus 46.3 s). The HHUS device was accurate in the assessment of structural damage and inflammation in patients with IA, but only in the B mode. Significant improvements are still needed for HHUS to reliably demonstrate blood flow detection in PD mode

Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania

OBJECTIVE: To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across three countries. METHODS: A web-based survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to adults recruited via survey panels in the UK, Germany and Romania. Participants were asked to assume they were experiencing arthralgia and had a 60% chance of developing RA in the next 2 years and completed 15 choices between no treatment and two hypothetical preventive treatments. Treatments were defined by six attributes (effectiveness, risks and frequency/route of administration) with varying levels. Participants also completed a choice task with fixed profiles reflecting subjective estimates of candidate preventive treatments. Latent class models (LCMs) were conducted and the relative importance of attributes, benefit-risk trade-offs and predicted treatment uptake was subsequently calculated. RESULTS: Completed surveys from 2959 participants were included in the analysis. Most participants preferred treatment over no treatment and valued treatment effectiveness to reduce risk more than other attributes. A five-class LCM best fitted the data. Country, perceived risk of RA, health literacy and numeracy predicted class membership probability. Overall, the maximum acceptable risk for a 40% reduction in the chance of getting RA (60% to 20%) was 21.7%, 19.1% and 2.2% for mild side effects, serious infection and serious side effects, respectively. Predicted uptake of profiles reflecting candidate prevention therapies differed across classes. CONCLUSION: Effective preventive pharmacological treatments for RA were acceptable to most participants. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles were predicted by participant characteristics

Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania

Objective: To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across three countries. Methods: A web-based survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to adults recruited via survey panels in the UK, Germany and Romania. Participants were asked to assume they were experiencing arthralgia and had a 60% chance of developing RA in the next 2 years and completed 15 choices between no treatment and two hypothetical preventive treatments. Treatments were defined by six attributes (effectiveness, risks and frequency/route of administration) with varying levels. Participants also completed a choice task with fixed profiles reflecting subjective estimates of candidate preventive treatments. Latent class models (LCMs) were conducted and the relative importance of attributes, benefit–risk trade-offs and predicted treatment uptake was subsequently calculated. Results: Completed surveys from 2959 participants were included in the analysis. Most participants preferred treatment over no treatment and valued treatment effectiveness to reduce risk more than other attributes. A five-class LCM best fitted the data. Country, perceived risk of RA, health literacy and numeracy predicted class membership probability. Overall, the maximum acceptable risk for a 40% reduction in the chance of getting RA (60% to 20%) was 21.7%, 19.1% and 2.2% for mild side effects, serious infection and serious side effects, respectively. Predicted uptake of profiles reflecting candidate prevention therapies differed across classes. Conclusion: Effective preventive pharmacological treatments for RA were acceptable to most participants. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles were predicted by participant characteristics.IMI-PREFE

Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis : protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project

Introduction Amidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project ‘Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle’ (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit–risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions. Methods and analysis This mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92_17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations.IMI-PREFE

Acceptable risks of treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis amongst first-degree relatives:demographic and psychological predictors of risk tolerances

OBJECTIVES: To quantify tolerance to risks of preventive treatments among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Preventive treatments for RA are under investigation. In a preference survey, adult FDRs assumed a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 years and made choices between no treatment and hypothetical preventive treatment options with a fixed level of benefit (reduction in chance of developing RA from 60% to 20%) and varying levels of risks. Using a probabilistic threshold technique, each risk was increased or decreased until participants switched their choice. Perceived risk of RA, health literacy, numeracy, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-General were also assessed. Maximum acceptable risk (MAR) was summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between MARs and participants’ characteristics were assessed using interval regression with effects coding. RESULTS: 289 FDRs (80 male) responded. The mean MAR for a 40% reduction in chance of developing RA was 29.08% risk of mild side effects, 9.09% risk of serious infection and 0.85% risk of a serious side effect. Participants aged over 60 years were less tolerant of serious infection risk (mean MAR ±2.06%) than younger participants. Risk of mild side effects was less acceptable to participants who perceived higher likelihood of developing RA (mean MAR ±3.34%) and more acceptable to those believing that if they developed RA it would last for a long time (mean MAR ±4.44%). CONCLUSIONS: Age, perceived chance of developing RA and perceived duration of RA were associated with tolerance to some risks of preventive RA therapy

Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: Protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project

Introduction Amidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project â € Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle' (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit-risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions. Methods and analysis This mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92_17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations

Joint Manifestations in Patients Diagnosed with Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy: Multicenter Registry on Inflammatory Myositis from the Rheumatology Society in Madrid, Spain

Sin financiación7.783 JCR (2017) Q1, 3/30 Rheumatology3.889 SJR (2017) Q1, 19/227 ImmunologyNo data IDR 2017UE