Should We Be Screening for and Treating Periodontal Disease in Individuals Who Are at Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis?

There is increasing evidence supporting an association between periodontal disease (PD) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both mechanistically and clinically. Trials have shown that treating PD in people with RA may improve RA disease activity. Patients with musculoskeletal symptoms without arthritis, who test positive for cyclic-citrullinated protein antibodies, are at risk of RA (CCP+ at-risk), with seropositivity preceding arthritis onset by months or years. Importantly, there is evidence to suggest that periodontal inflammation may precede joint inflammation in CCP+ at-risk and, therefore, this could be a trigger for RA. There has been increased research interest in RA prevention and the phenotyping of the pre-RA disease phase. This review will examine the merits of identifying individuals who are CCP+ at-risk and performing screening for PD. In addition, we discuss how PD should be treated once identified. Finally, the review will consider future research needed to advance our understanding of this disease association

Comorbidities in Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Positive At-Risk Individuals Do Not Differ from Those Patients with Early Inflammatory Arthritis

Objectives: To compare comorbidities in a cohort of cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive patients without or prior to onset of inflammatory arthritis (IA) to those in patients with early IA. Methods: Baseline data from two established cohorts were used. The first recruited people at risk of IA: CCP antibody positive cases without IA (CCP Cohort, n = 296). The second cohort [the Inflammatory Arthritis CONtinuum study (IACON)] recruited patients with early IA (n = 725). Proportions of patients with given comorbidities were compared between cohorts and then logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (OR) for the CCP cohort having specific comorbidities, compared to IACON patients. Analyses adjusted for gender, age, smoking status, and body mass index. Results: Patients from the CCP cohort were younger (mean age 50, compared to 53 years). The proportion of patients with at least one comorbidity was higher in the IACON than the CCP cohort: (40% compared to 24%, respectively). Results of logistic regression analyses suggested the odds of hypertension, taking a lipid-lowering agent, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, lung disease, and diabetes were not increased in either cohort. However, patients in the CCP cohort were more likely to be taking an antidepressant (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.03, 2.56, p = 0.037). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in comorbidities among people with CCP antibodies but without IA, compared to those of patients with established IA

“What is my risk really?”: A qualitative exploration of preventive interventions among individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives Intervention in the pre-arthritis phase of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could prevent or delay the onset of disease. The primary aim of this study was to explore perspectives of being at-risk and potential preventive interventions among individuals at risk of developing RA, and identify factors influencing their engagement with prevention. A secondary aim, established during the analysis process, was to understand and compare different approaches to health-related behaviours related to preventing RA. Methods Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide positive at-risk (CCP+ at-risk) individuals with musculoskeletal symptoms but no synovitis participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, followed by a secondary ideal-type analysis. Results Nineteen CCP+ at-risk individuals (ten women; age range 35–70) participated. Three overarching themes were identified: i) being CCP+ at risk; ii) aiming to prevent RA; iii) influencers of engagement. Participants described distress related to symptoms and uncertainty about disease progression. Many participants had concerns about medication side effects. In contrast, most participants expressed willingness to make lifestyle changes with the aim of preventing RA. Engagement with preventive measures was influenced by symptom severity, personal risk level, comorbidities, experiences of taking other medications/supplements, knowledge of RA, risk factors and medications, and perceived effort. Three ‘types’ of participants were identified from the data: proactive preventers, change considerers, and fearful avoiders. Overall orientation to health behaviours also impacted on attitude towards preventing RA. Conclusion Findings could inform recruitment and retention in RA prevention research and promote uptake of preventive interventions in clinical practice

Access to the next wave of biologic therapies (Abatacept and Tocilizumab) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in England and Wales: Addressing treatment outside the current NICE guidance

Patients in England and Wales with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive treatment from the National Health Service (NHS) with therapies approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), under guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). This document overviews the current NICE guidelines for the treatment of RA and identifies scenarios when such guidance may not represent the optimum management strategy for individual patients. Specifically, we consider the use of tocilizumab or abatacept as the most appropriate treatments for some patients. In such scenarios, it may be possible for the clinician to secure access to the required therapy through an application procedure known as an ‘individual funding request’, the process of which is described in detail here. At present, it is unclear the extent to which the proposed reform of the NHS will affect the role of NICE in providing guidance and setting standards of care. Until the full impact of the proposed changes are realized, individual funding requests will remain a valuable way of securing the optimal treatment for all patients suffering from RA

<scp>Poly‐Refractory</scp> Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Uncommon Subset of Difficult to Treat Disease With Distinct Inflammatory and Noninflammatory Phenotypes

Objective To investigate the prevalence of poly-refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA) defined as failure of all biological (b)/targeted synthetic (ts)-disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs). To further investigate whether patients with persistent inflammatory refractory RA (PIRRA) and noninflammatory refractory RA (NIRRA), determined by objective ultrasound (US) synovitis, have distinct clinical phenotypes in both EULAR difficult-to-treat RA (D2T-RA) and poly-refractory RA groups. Methods A cross-sectional study of 1,591 patients with RA on b/tsDMARDs that evaluated D2T-RA criteria and subclassified as poly-refractory if inefficacy/toxicity to at least one drug of all classes. PIRRA was defined if US synovitis in one or more swollen joint and NIRRA if absent. Univariate tests and multivariate logistic regression were conducted to investigate factors associated with poly-refractory, PIRRA, and NIRRA phenotypes. Results 122 of 1,591 were excluded due to missing data. 247 of 1,469 (16.8%) had D2T-RA and only 40 of 1,469 (2.7%) poly-refractory RA. This latter group had higher disease activity score 28 C-reactive protein (CRP) (median 5.4 vs 5.02, P < 0.05), CRP levels (median 13 vs 5 mg/l, P < 0.01), and smoking (ever) rates (20% vs 4%, P < 0.01) compared with other D2T patients. Smoking was associated with poly-refractory RA (odds ratio 5.067, 95% CI 1.774–14.472, P = 0.002). Of 107 patients with D2T-RA with recent US, 61 (57%) were PIRRA and 46 (43%), NIRRA. Patients with NIRRA had elevated body mass index (median 30 vs 26, P < 0.001) and higher fibromyalgia prevalence (15% vs 3%, P < 0.05), lower swollen joint count (median: 2 vs 5, P < 0.001), and lower CRP levels (5 vs 10, P < 0.01). Conclusion Only 2.7% of D2T-RA failed all classes of b/tsDMARDs. Among D2T-RA, less than 60% had objective signs of inflammation, representing a target for innovative strategies

Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial

\ua9 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Background: Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. Methods: The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013–003413–18). Findings: Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92\ub78% (SE 2\ub76) in the abatacept group and 69\ub72% (4\ub77) in the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0\ub7044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28–78; p&lt;0\ub70001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38–161; p=0\ub70016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. Interpretation: Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on DMARDs: as determined by antibody and T cell responses

Objectives To assess antibody and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods This prospective study recruited 100 patients with RA on a variety of DMARDs for antibody and T cell analysis, pre-vaccination and 4 weeks post-vaccination. Positive antibody response was defined as sera IgG binding to ≥1 antigen. Those that remained seronegative after first vaccination were retested 4 weeks after second vaccination; and if still seronegative after vaccination three. A T cell response was defined an ELISpot count of ≥7 interferon (IFN)γ-positive cells when exposed to spike antigens. Type I IFN activity was determined using the luminex multiplex assay IFN score. Results After vaccine one, in patients without prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 37/83 (45%) developed vaccine-specific antibody responses, 44/83 (53%) vaccine-specific T cell responses and 64/83 (77%) developed either antibody or T cell responses. Reduced seroconversion was seen with abatacept, rituximab (RTX) and those on concomitant methotrexate (MTX) compared to 100% for healthy controls (p<0.001). Better seroconversion occurred with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) versus RTX (p=0.012) and with age ≤50 (p=0.012). Pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 exposure was associated with higher quantitative seroconversion (≥3 antibodies) (p<0.001). In the subgroup of non-seroconverters, a second vaccination produced seroconversion in 54% (19/35), and after a third in 20% (2/10). IFN score analysis showed no change post-vaccine. Conclusion Patients with RA on DMARDs have reduced vaccine responses, particularly on certain DMARDs, with improvement on subsequent vaccinations but with approximately 10% still seronegative after three doses

IL7 genetic variation and toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade in patients with melanoma

Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) frequently triggers immune-related adverse events (irAEs), causing considerable morbidity. In 214 patients receiving ICB for melanoma, we observed increased severe irAE risk in minor allele carriers of rs16906115, intronic to IL7. We found that rs16906115 forms a B cell-specific expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) to IL7 in patients. Patients carrying the risk allele demonstrate increased pre-treatment B cell IL7 expression, which independently associates with irAE risk, divergent immunoglobulin expression and more B cell receptor mutations. Consistent with the role of IL-7 in T cell development, risk allele carriers have distinct ICB-induced CD8⁺ T cell subset responses, skewing of T cell clonality and greater proportional repertoire occupancy by large clones. Finally, analysis of TCGA data suggests that risk allele carriers independently have improved melanoma survival. These observations highlight key roles for B cells and IL-7 in both ICB response and toxicity and clinical outcomes in melanoma

Nighttime systolic blood pressure area under the curve predicts cardiovascular mortality: Dublin Outcome Study

status: publishe