Ariel - Volume 5 Number 2

Editors Mark Dembert J.D. Kanofsky Entertainment Editor Robert Breckenridge Gary Kaskey Overseas Editor Mike Sinason Photographer Scott Kastner Staff Ken Jaffe Bob Sklaroff Joseph Sassani Janet Weis

Vitamin C: Intravenous Use by Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practitioners and Adverse Effects

Background: Anecdotal information and case reports suggest that intravenously administered vitamin C is used by Complementary and Alternate Medicine (CAM) practitioners. The scale of such use in the U.S. and associated side effects are unknown. Methods and Findings: We surveyed attendees at annual CAM Conferences in 2006 and 2008, and determined sales of intravenous vitamin C by major U.S. manufacturers/distributors. We also queried practitioners for side effects, compiled published cases, and analyzed FDA’s Adverse Events Database. Of 199 survey respondents (out of 550), 172 practitioners administered IV vitamin C to 11,233 patients in 2006 and 8876 patients in 2008. Average dose was 28 grams every 4 days, with 22 total treatments per patient. Estimated yearly doses used (as 25g/50ml vials) were 318,539 in 2006 and 354,647 in 2008. Manufacturers ’ yearly sales were 750,000 and 855,000 vials, respectively. Common reasons for treatment included infection, cancer, and fatigue. Of 9,328 patients for whom data is available, 101 had side effects, mostly minor, including lethargy/fatigue in 59 patients, change in mental status in 21 patients and vein irritation/phlebitis in 6 patients. Publications documented serious adverse events, including 2 deaths in patients known to be at risk for IV vitamin C. Due to confounding causes, the FDA Adverse Events Database was uninformative. Total numbers of patients treated in the US with high dose vitamin C cannot be accurately estimated from this study

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Scleroderma and related disorders: 223. Long Term Outcome in a Contemporary Systemic Sclerosis Cohort

Background: We have previously compared outcome in two groups of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with disease onset a decade apart and we reported data on 5 year survival and cumulative incidence of organ disease in a contemporary SSc cohort. The present study examines longer term outcome in an additional cohort of SSc followed for 10 years. Methods: We have examined patients with disease onset between years 1995 and 1999 allowing for at least 10 years of follow-up in a group that has characteristics representative for the patients we see in contemporary clinical practice. Results: Of the 398 patients included in the study, 252 (63.3%) had limited cutaneous (lc) SSc and 146 (36.7%) had diffuse cutaneous (dc) SSc. The proportion of male patients was higher among the dcSSc group (17.1% v 9.9%, p = 0.037) while the mean age of onset was significantly higher among lcSSc patients (50 ± 13 v 46 ± 13 years ± SD, p = 0.003). During a 10 year follow-up from disease onset, 45% of the dcSSc and 21% of the lcSSc subjects developed clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis, p < 0.001. Among them approximately half reached the endpoint within the first 3 years (23% of dcSSc and 10% of lcSSc) and over three quarters within the first 5 years (34% and 16% respectively). There was a similar incidence of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in the two subsets with a steady rate of increase over time. At 10 years 13% of dcSSc and 15% of lcSSc subjects had developed PH (p=0.558), with the earliest cases observed within the first 2 years of disease. Comparison between subjects who developed PH in the first and second 5 years from disease onset demonstrated no difference in demographic or clinical characteristics, but 5-year survival from PH onset was better among those who developed this complication later in their disease (49% v 24%), with a strong trend towards statistical significance (p = 0.058). Incidence of SSc renal crisis (SRC) was significantly higher among the dcSSc patients (12% v 4% in lcSSc, p = 0.002). As previously observed, the rate of development of SRC was highest in the first 3 years of disease- 10% in dcSSc and 3% in lcSSc. All incidences of clinically important cardiac disease developed in the first 5 years from disease onset (7% in dcSSc v 1% in lcSSc, p < 0.001) and remained unchanged at 10 years. As expected, 10-year survival among lcSSc subjects was significantly higher (81%) compared to that of dcSSc patients (70%, p = 0.006). Interestingly, although over the first 5 years the death rate was much higher in the dcSSc cohort (16% v 6% in lcSSc), over the following years it became very similar for both subsets (14% and 13% between years 5 and 10, and 18% and 17% between years 10 and 15 for dcSSc and lcSSc respectively). Conclusions: Even though dcSSc patients have higher incidence for most organ complications compared to lcSSc subjects, the worse survival among them is mainly due to higher early mortality rate. Mortality rate after first 5 years of disease becomes comparable in the two disease subsets. Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Basic science232. Certolizumab pegol prevents pro-inflammatory alterations in endothelial cell function

Background: Cardiovascular disease is a major comorbidity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a leading cause of death. Chronic systemic inflammation involving tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF) could contribute to endothelial activation and atherogenesis. A number of anti-TNF therapies are in current use for the treatment of RA, including certolizumab pegol (CZP), (Cimzia ®; UCB, Belgium). Anti-TNF therapy has been associated with reduced clinical cardiovascular disease risk and ameliorated vascular function in RA patients. However, the specific effects of TNF inhibitors on endothelial cell function are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the mechanisms underpinning CZP effects on TNF-activated human endothelial cells. Methods: Human aortic endothelial cells (HAoECs) were cultured in vitro and exposed to a) TNF alone, b) TNF plus CZP, or c) neither agent. Microarray analysis was used to examine the transcriptional profile of cells treated for 6 hrs and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysed gene expression at 1, 3, 6 and 24 hrs. NF-κB localization and IκB degradation were investigated using immunocytochemistry, high content analysis and western blotting. Flow cytometry was conducted to detect microparticle release from HAoECs. Results: Transcriptional profiling revealed that while TNF alone had strong effects on endothelial gene expression, TNF and CZP in combination produced a global gene expression pattern similar to untreated control. The two most highly up-regulated genes in response to TNF treatment were adhesion molecules E-selectin and VCAM-1 (q 0.2 compared to control; p > 0.05 compared to TNF alone). The NF-κB pathway was confirmed as a downstream target of TNF-induced HAoEC activation, via nuclear translocation of NF-κB and degradation of IκB, effects which were abolished by treatment with CZP. In addition, flow cytometry detected an increased production of endothelial microparticles in TNF-activated HAoECs, which was prevented by treatment with CZP. Conclusions: We have found at a cellular level that a clinically available TNF inhibitor, CZP reduces the expression of adhesion molecule expression, and prevents TNF-induced activation of the NF-κB pathway. Furthermore, CZP prevents the production of microparticles by activated endothelial cells. This could be central to the prevention of inflammatory environments underlying these conditions and measurement of microparticles has potential as a novel prognostic marker for future cardiovascular events in this patient group. Disclosure statement: Y.A. received a research grant from UCB. I.B. received a research grant from UCB. S.H. received a research grant from UCB. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Symptom-based stratification of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome: multi-dimensional characterisation of international observational cohorts and reanalyses of randomised clinical trials

Background Heterogeneity is a major obstacle to developing effective treatments for patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome. We aimed to develop a robust method for stratification, exploiting heterogeneity in patient-reported symptoms, and to relate these differences to pathobiology and therapeutic response. Methods We did hierarchical cluster analysis using five common symptoms associated with primary Sjögren's syndrome (pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression), followed by multinomial logistic regression to identify subgroups in the UK Primary Sjögren's Syndrome Registry (UKPSSR). We assessed clinical and biological differences between these subgroups, including transcriptional differences in peripheral blood. Patients from two independent validation cohorts in Norway and France were used to confirm patient stratification. Data from two phase 3 clinical trials were similarly stratified to assess the differences between subgroups in treatment response to hydroxychloroquine and rituximab. Findings In the UKPSSR cohort (n=608), we identified four subgroups: Low symptom burden (LSB), high symptom burden (HSB), dryness dominant with fatigue (DDF), and pain dominant with fatigue (PDF). Significant differences in peripheral blood lymphocyte counts, anti-SSA and anti-SSB antibody positivity, as well as serum IgG, κ-free light chain, β2-microglobulin, and CXCL13 concentrations were observed between these subgroups, along with differentially expressed transcriptomic modules in peripheral blood. Similar findings were observed in the independent validation cohorts (n=396). Reanalysis of trial data stratifying patients into these subgroups suggested a treatment effect with hydroxychloroquine in the HSB subgroup and with rituximab in the DDF subgroup compared with placebo. Interpretation Stratification on the basis of patient-reported symptoms of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome revealed distinct pathobiological endotypes with distinct responses to immunomodulatory treatments. Our data have important implications for clinical management, trial design, and therapeutic development. Similar stratification approaches might be useful for patients with other chronic immune-mediated diseases. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Sjogren's Syndrome Association, French Ministry of Health, Arthritis Research UK, Foundation for Research in Rheumatology

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme