The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and stringent social distancing measures on health-related quality of life and COVID-19 infection rates in patients with rheumatic disease: a longitudinal analysis through the pandemic

Objective The aim was to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and stringent social isolation measures on patients with rheumatic disease (RD) from the beginning of the pandemic (April 2020). Methods In this UK-based single-centre, prospective, observational cohort study, all RD follow-up patients at our centre were invited by SMS text message in April 2020 to participate in the study. Participants completed questionnaires at four time points between April 2020 and December 2021. We collected demographics, clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) status, short form 12 mental (MCS) and physical health component scores (PCS) for health-related quality of life, vaccination status, COVID-19 infection rates and incidence of long COVID. Results We enrolled 1605 patients (female, 69.0%; CEV, 46.5%); 906 of 1605 (56.4%) completed linked responses to our final questionnaire. MCS improved (+0.6, P?<?0.05), whereas PCS scores deteriorated (-1.4, P?<?0.001) between April 2020 and December 2021. CEV patients had worse mental and physical health scores than non-CEV patients at entry (PCS, 36.7 and 39.3, respectively, P?<?0.001; MCS, 40.9 and 43.0, respectively, P?<?0.001) and at each time point throughout the study; both mental and physical health outcomes were worse in CEV compared with non-CEV patients (P?<?0.001 and P?=?0.004, respectively). At study close, 148 of 906 (16.3%) reported COVID infection, with no difference in infection, vaccination or long COVID rates between CEV and non-CEV patients. Conclusions Mental and physical health in RD patients has changed throughout the pandemic; outcomes for both metrics of health were worse in CEV patients, although there were no differences in infection rates between the groups. These data might assist the understanding and planning of future health-care policy and social restrictions in RD patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04542031

Spontaneously Resolving Joint Inflammation Is Characterised by Metabolic Agility of Fibroblast-Like Synoviocytes

Fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS) play an important role in maintaining joint homeostasis and orchestrating local inflammatory processes. When activated during injury or inflammation, FLS undergo transiently increased bioenergetic and biosynthetic demand. We aimed to identify metabolic changes which occur early in inflammatory disease pathogenesis which might support sustained cellular activation in persistent inflammation. We took primary human FLS from synovial biopsies of patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis (veRA) or resolving synovitis, and compared them with uninflamed control samples from the synovium of people without arthritis. Metabotypes were compared using NMR spectroscopy-based metabolomics and correlated with serum C-reactive protein levels. We measured glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation by Seahorse analysis and assessed mitochondrial morphology by immunofluorescence. We demonstrate differences in FLS metabolism measurable after ex vivo culture, suggesting that disease-associated metabolic changes are long-lasting. We term this phenomenon ‘metabolic memory’. We identify changes in cell metabolism after acute TNFα stimulation across disease groups. When compared to FLS from patients with early rheumatoid arthritis, FLS from patients with resolving synovitis have significantly elevated mitochondrial respiratory capacity in the resting state, and less fragmented mitochondrial morphology after TNFα treatment. Our findings indicate the potential to restore cell metabotypes by modulating mitochondrial function at sites of inflammation, with implications for treatment of RA and related inflammatory conditions in which fibroblasts play a role

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