Time to achieve remission determines time to be in remission

Contains fulltext : 87665.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)INTRODUCTION: Though remission is currently a treatment goal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the number of patients who achieve and sustain remission in daily practice is still small. It is suggested that early remission will be associated with sustainability of remission. The aim was to study the association between time-to-remission and sustainability of remission in a cohort of early RA patients treated according to daily practice. METHODS: For this study, three-year follow-up data were used from the Nijmegen RA Inception Cohort of patients included between 1985 and 2005 (N=753). Patients were included upon diagnosis (ACR criteria), were systematically evaluated at three-monthly visits and treated according to daily practice. Remission was defined according to the Disease Activity Score (DAS)<1.6 and the ACR remission criteria. Remission of at least 6 months duration was regarded as sustained remission. Predictors for time-to-remission were identified by Cox-regression analyses. The relation between time-to-remission and sustained remission was analyzed using longitudinal binary regression. RESULTS: N=398 (52%) patients achieved remission with a median time-to-remission of 12 months. Male gender, younger age and low DAS at baseline were predictive to reach remission rapidly. There were n=142 (36%) patients experiencing sustained remission, which was determined by a shorter time-to-remission only. The relationship between time-to-remission and sustained remission was described by a significant odds ratio (1.11) (1.10 to 1.12-95% CI) that was constant over the whole period 1985 to 2005. Results obtained with the ACR remission criteria were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A shorter time-to-remission is related to sustainability of remission, supporting striving for early remission in patients with RA

Anti-infliximab antibodies are already detectable in most patients with rheumatoid arthritis halfway through an infusioncycle: an open-label pharmacokinetic cohort study

Contains fulltext : 97636.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: This study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with infliximab describes prospectively the course of (anti)infliximab levels within an infusioncycle to assess at what moment patients develop low/no infliximab trough levels and/or detectable anti-infliximab levels. METHODS: Infliximab treated RA patients were included in this descriptive open-label cohort study. During one infusioncycle (anti-)infliximab levels were assessed just before and one hour after infusion, and subsequently at 50%, 75% and at the end of the infusioncycle (pre-infusion). RESULTS: 27 patients were included. The median infliximab levels decreased from 77.0 mg/l (p25-p75: 65-89) one hour after the infusion to pre-infusion levels of 0.0 mg/l (p25-p75: 0.0-3.1). In 7 (26%) patients pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies were detected; these antibodies were already present halfway through the infusioncycle in 5 of the 7 individuals. Patients with detectable pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies have significantly more often low/no infliximab levels (< 1 mg/l) halfway trough the infusioncycle (in 5/7 patients) compared to patients without detectable pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies (0/20 patients, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most anti-infliximab forming patients have detectable anti-infliximab antibodies halfway through an infusioncycle, which implies that these patients are exposed to nontherapeutical infliximab levels during more than halve of their infusion cycle. As none of the patients without anti-infliximab antibodies had no/low-infliximab levels halfway through the infusioncycle, the presence of pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies seems a sensitive and specific predictor for no/low infliximab-levels

Steroid hormone-related polymorphisms associate with the development of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis and help to predict disease progression: Results from the REPAIR consortium

Here, we assessed whether 41 SNPs within steroid hormone genes associated with erosive disease. The most relevant finding was the rheumatoid factor (RF)-specific effect of the CYP1B1, CYP2C9, ESR2, FcγR3A, and SHBG SNPs to modulate the risk of bone erosions (P = 0.004, 0.0007, 0.0002, 0.013 and 0.015) that was confirmed through meta-analysis of our data with those from the DREAM registry (P = 0.000081, 0.0022, 0.00074, 0.0067 and 0.0087, respectively). Mechanistically, we also found a gender-specific correlation of the CYP2C9rs1799853T/T genotype with serum vitamin D3 levels (P = 0.00085) and a modest effect on IL1β levels after stimulation of PBMCs or blood with LPS and PHA (P = 0.0057 and P = 0.0058). An overall haplotype analysis also showed an association of 3 ESR1 haplotypes with a reduced risk of erosive arthritis (P = 0.009, P = 0.002, and P = 0.002). Furthermore, we observed that the ESR2, ESR1 and FcγR3A SNPs influenced the immune response after stimulation of PBMCs or macrophages with LPS or Pam3Cys (P = 0.002, 0.0008, 0.0011 and 1.97•10−7). Finally, we found that a model built with steroid hormone-related SNPs significantly improved the prediction of erosive disease in seropositive patients (PRF+ = 2.46•10−8) whereas no prediction was detected in seronegative patients (PRF− = 0.36). Although the predictive ability of the model was substantially lower in the replication population (PRF+ = 0.014), we could confirm that CYP1B1 and CYP2C9 SNPs help to predict erosive disease in seropositive patients. These results are the first to suggest a RF-specific association of steroid hormone-related polymorphisms with erosive disease

Validation Study of Existing Gene Expression Signatures for Anti-TNF Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

So far, there are no means of identifying rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who will fail to respond to tumour necrosis factor blocking agents (anti-TNF), prior to treatment. We set out to validate eight previously reported gene expression signatures predicting therapy outcome. Genome-wide expression profiling using Affymetrix GeneChip Exon 1.0 ST arrays was performed on RNA isolated from whole blood of 42 RA patients starting treatment with infliximab or adalimumab. Clinical response according to EULAR criteria was determined at week 14 of therapy. Genes that have been reported to be associated with anti-TNF treatment were extracted from our dataset. K-means partition clustering was performed to assess the predictive value of the gene-sets. We performed a hypothesis-driven analysis of the dataset using eight existing gene sets predictive of anti-TNF treatment outcome. The set that performed best reached a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 61%, for classifying the patients in the current study. We successfully validated one of eight previously reported predictive expression profile. This replicated expression signature is a good starting point for developing a prediction model for anti-TNF treatment outcome that can be used in a daily clinical setting. Our results confirm that gene expression profiling prior to treatment is a useful tool to predict anti-TNF (non) response

Non-pharmacological care for patients with generalized osteoarthritis: design of a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) is a useful treatment option in the management of hip or knee osteoarthritis. To our knowledge however, no studies have investigated the effect of NPT in patients with generalized osteoarthritis (GOA). The primary aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two currently existing health care programs with different intensity and mode of delivery on daily functioning in patients with GOA. The secondary objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of both interventions.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this randomized, single blind, clinical trial with active controls, we aim to include 170 patients with GOA. The experimental intervention consist of six self-management group sessions provided by a multi-disciplinary team (occupational therapist, physiotherapist, dietician and specialized nurse). The active control group consists of two group sessions and four sessions by telephone, provided by a specialized nurse and physiotherapist. Both therapies last six weeks. Main study outcome is daily functioning during the first year after the treatment, assessed on the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are health related quality of life, specific complaints, fatigue, and costs. Illness cognitions, global perceived effect and self-efficacy, will also be assessed for a responder analysis. Outcome assessments are performed directly after the intervention, after 26 weeks and after 52 weeks.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article describes the design of a randomized, single blind, clinical trial with a one year follow up to compare the costs and effectiveness of two non-pharmacological interventions with different modes of delivery for patients with GOA.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Dutch Trial Register NTR2137</p

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

Objectives: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost

2022 update

Funding Information: This study was funded by European League Against Rheumatism. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

The Dutch Lower Extremity Functional Scale was highly reliable, valid and responsive in individuals with hip/knee osteoarthritis: a validation study

BACKGROUND: The WOMAC is the most widely used self-report measure to evaluate physical functioning in hip or knee osteoarthritis, however its ability to discriminate pain and physical functioning (i.e. discriminate validity) has repeatedly been questioned. Little to no data is available on the discriminant validity of alternative questionnaires that measure the same construct, for instance the Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS and KOOS, respectively) and the Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS). Therefore, we translated the LEFS to Dutch and studied its psychometric properties (i.e. validity, reliability and responsiveness). In addition, we assessed the discriminate validity of the LEFS, HOOS and KOOS. METHODS: After translation with a forward/backward protocol, 401 individuals with hip or knee osteoarthritis completed the LEFS, HOOS/KOOS, SF-36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Checklist Individual Strength questionnaires. To assess reliability and responsiveness, a sample of 106 and 108 patients completed a comparable set of questionnaires within 3 weeks and 3 months, respectively. Feasibility, validity, reliability and responsiveness were evaluated. Discriminant validity of the LEFS, HOOS and KOOS was examined by contrasting the scales’ correlations with the physical functioning subscale of the SF-36 with the scales’ correlations with the bodily pain subscale of the SF-36. RESULTS: The Dutch version of the LEFS was feasible, had good internal consistency (0.96), good reliability (ICC = 0.86), good construct and discriminant validity, and showed no floor or ceiling effects. The minimal detectable change (MDC(90)) was ten points. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analyses revealed good (AUC = 0.76) and fair (AUC = 0.63) responsiveness for the LEFS in improved and worsened patients, respectively. Discriminant validity for pain was apparent for the LEFS (p < 0.01), but not for the HOOS and KOOS (p = 0.21 and p = 0.20, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the LEFS’ good psychometric qualities and ability to discriminate between pain and functioning, we recommend the LEFS as the outcome measure of choice to assess self-reported physical functioning in individuals with hip or knee osteoarthritis

Longitudinal impact of joint pain comorbidity on quality of life and activity levels in knee osteoarthritis: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

Objectives. Joint pain comorbidity (JPC) is common in individuals with knee OA. This study investigates the longitudinal association between JPC and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and physical activity levels in individuals with knee OA. Methods. Data from the progression cohort of the Osteoarthritis Initiative (n = 1233; age 61 years and 58% females) were analysed. JPC was considered present if individuals reported pain in three or more joint groups, including the knee joints. HRQoL was assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life subscale, and self-reported physical activity was determined using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses were performed, adjusted for age, sex, duration of complaints, medical comorbidity, and physical and mental functioning. Results. Over the 4-year period, 32% of participants never reported JPC, whereas 12% always reported JPC. GEE modelling demonstrated that having JPC was negatively associated with HRQoL [regression coefficient β (95% CI) −3.57 (−4.69, −2.44)] and not associated with physical activity [−1.32 (−6.61, 3.98)]. Conclusion. Considering the impact of JPC on the HRQoL of individuals with knee OA, the assessment of JPC in individuals with knee OA might be a daily routine

Humoral response to coronavirus disease-19 vaccines is dependent on dosage and timing of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES: Humoral response to vaccines in RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX) in standard dosages (≥1000 mg) is decreased. Ultra-low dosages (500 or 200 mg) may have better response. Also, timing after latest RTX infusion may be an important variable. We aimed to investigate the influence of RTX dosage and timing on response to COVID-19 vaccination in RA patients. METHODS: A single-centre observational study (n = 196) investigated the humoral response, measured by total Ig anti-COVID-19 assay (positive response ≥1.1), 2-6 weeks after complete COVID-19 vaccination. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to study the effect of RTX dosage and time between latest rituximab and vaccination on response, adjusting for age and methotrexate use. RESULTS: After two-dose vaccination, the response rate was significantly better for patients receiving 200 mg (n = 31, 45%) rituximab compared with 1000 mg (n = 98, 26%; odds ratio 3.07, 95% CI 1.14-8.27) and for each additional month between latest rituximab and vaccination (OR 1.67, 1.39-2.01). CONCLUSION: Both increased time between latest rituximab infusion and complete vaccination, and 200 mg as latest dose were associated with a better response to COVID-19 vaccination and should be considered when trying to increase vaccine response after rituximab in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, https://www.trialregister.nl/, NL9342