Ultrasonographic and radiographic results from a two-year controlled trial of immediate or one-year-delayed addition of infliximab to ongoing methotrexate therapy in patients with erosive early rheumatoid arthritis

Longitudinal Changes in Knee Joint Synovial Vascularity in a Rabbit Model of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Quantification Using Power Doppler Ultrasound and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound

We studied a rabbit model of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to examine the time course of changes in synovial neovascularization based on quantitative power Doppler ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Twenty-five male New Zealand rabbits were in the ovalbumin-induced arthritis (OIA) group, and 5 were in the control group. Both rear knee joints of all rabbits were examined using conventional US and CEUS over 16 weeks. The knee synoviums of OIA rabbits were sampled by US-guided biopsy, and expression of CD31 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) was determined by immunohistochemistry. The correlation of joint damage based on multimodal US with microvessel density (CD31 positivity) and VEGF expression at different times was analyzed. OIA rabbits had increased synovial expression of CD31 and VEGF from weeks 6 to 12 (p < 0.01). During the early stage of CEUS enhancement, "dot enhancement" was more common at weeks 6 and 8, and "stripe enhancement" was more common at weeks 12 and 16 (p < 0.05). There were significant positive correlations of synovial CD31 and VEGF expression with power Doppler image grade, CEUS grade and peak intensity (p < 0.05 for all). Thus, OIA rabbits mimicked early-stage RA at 6 to 8 weeks, middle-stage RA at 8 to 12 weeks and late-stage RA at 12 to 16 weeks. Power Doppler image grade, CEUS grade and peak intensity, especially when combined with CD31 expression data, accurately characterized the extent of synovial vascularization in a rabbit model of RA. Increased vascularity based on CEUS may have value for the early diagnosis of RA.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Joint-specific assessment of swelling and power Doppler in obese rheumatoid arthritis patients

Background

Clinical swollen joint examination of the obese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient can be difficult. Musculoskeletal Ultrasound (MSUS) has higher sensitivity than physical examination for swollen joints (SJ). The purpose of this study was to determine the joint-specific association between power Doppler (PDUS) and clinical SJ in RA across body mass index (BMI) categories.

Methods

Cross-sectional clinical and laboratory data were collected on 43 RA patients. PDUS was performed on 9 joints (wrist, metacarpalphalangeal 2–5, proximal interphalgeal 2/3 and metatarsalphalangeal 2/5). DAS28 and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) were calculated. Patients were categorized by BMI: <25, 25–30, and >30. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared across BMI groups with Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests. Joint-level associations between PDUS and clinically SJ were evaluated with mixed effects logistic regression models.

Results

While demographics and clinically-determined disease activity were similar among BMI groups, PDUS scores significantly differed (p = 0.02). Using PDUS activity as the reference standard for synovitis and clinically SJ as the test, the positive predictive value of SJ was significantly lower in higher BMI groups (0.71 in BMI < 25, 0.58 in BMI 25–30 and 0.44 in BMI < 30) (p = 0.02). The logistic model demonstrated that increased BMI category resulted in decreased likelihood of PDUS positivity (OR 0.52, p = 0.03).

Conclusions

This study suggests that in an obese RA patient, a clinically assessed SJ is less likely to represent true synovitis (as measured by PDUS). Disease activity in obese RA patients may be overestimated by CDAI/DAS28 calculations and clinicians when considering change in therapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1406-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models.

RESULTS

We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Anti-inflammatory treatment improves high-density lipoprotein function in rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased cardiovascular risk. Recent studies suggest that high-density lipoprotein (HDL) may lose its protective vascular phenotype in inflammatory conditions. However, the effects of common anti-inflammatory treatments on HDL function are not yet known.

Methods

We compared the function of HDL in 18 patients with RA and 18 matched healthy controls. Subsequently, patients were randomised to (methotrexate+infliximab (M+I) (5 mg/kg)) or methotrexate+placebo (M+P) infusions for 54 weeks. At week 54 and thereafter, all patients received infliximab therapy until completion of the trial (110 weeks), enabling assessment of the impact of 1 year of infliximab therapy in all patients. HDL functional properties were assessed at baseline, 54 weeks and 110 weeks by measuring the impact on endothelial nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability and superoxide production (SO), paraoxonase activity (PON-1) and cholesterol efflux.

Results

All HDL vascular assays were impaired in patients compared with controls. After 54 weeks, NO in response to HDL was significantly greater in patients who received M+I compared with those who received M+P. Endothelial SO in response to HDL was reduced in both groups, but PON-1 and cholesterol efflux remained unchanged. All vascular measures improved compared with baseline after ≥1 infliximab therapy in the analysis at 110 weeks. No significant trend was noted for cholesterol efflux.

Conclusions

HDL function can be improved with anti-inflammatory treatment in patients with RA. The M+I combination was superior to the M+P alone, suggesting that the tumour necrosis factor-α pathway may have a role in HDL vascular properties.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Quantitative power Doppler ultrasound measures of peripheral joint synovitis in poor prognosis early rheumatoid arthritis predict radiographic progression

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of quantitative vascular imaging by power Doppler US (PDUS) as a tool that can be used to stratify patient risk of joint damage in early seropositive RA while still biologic naive but on synthetic DMARD treatment.

METHODS

Eighty-five patients with seropositive RA of <3 years duration had clinical, laboratory and imaging assessments at 0 and 12 months. Imaging assessments consisted of radiographs of the hands and feet, two-dimensional (2D) high-frequency and PDUS imaging of 10 MCP joints that were scored for erosions and vascularity and three-dimensional (3D) PDUS of MCP joints and wrists that were scored for vascularity.

RESULTS

Severe deterioration on radiographs and ultrasonography was seen in 45 and 28% of patients, respectively. The 3D power Doppler volume and 2D vascularity scores were the most useful US predictors of deterioration. These variables were modelled in two equations that estimate structural damage over 12 months. The equations had a sensitivity of 63.2% and specificity of 80.9% for predicting radiographic structural damage and a sensitivity of 54.2% and specificity of 96.7% for predicting structural damage on ultrasonography.

CONCLUSION

In seropositive early RA, quantitative vascular imaging by PDUS has clinical utility in predicting which patients will derive benefit from early use of biologic therapy.

The comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis update of 44 trials

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate and update the safety data from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted from 1990 to May 2013. All studies included were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis that evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab treatment. The serious adverse events and discontinuation rates were abstracted, and risk estimates were calculated by Peto odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 11,700 subjects receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and 5901 subjects receiving placebo or traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were included. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment as a group was associated with a higher risk of serious infection (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.78) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) compared with placebo and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatments. Specifically, patients taking adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab had an increased risk of serious infection (OR, 1.69, 1.98, and 1.63, respectively) and showed an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.38, 1.67, and 2.04, respectively). In contrast, patients taking etanercept had a decreased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). Although ORs for malignancy varied across the different tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, none reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These meta-analysis updates of the comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors suggest a higher risk of serious infection associated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab, which seems to contribute to higher rates of discontinuation. In contrast, etanercept use showed a lower rate of discontinuation. These data may help guide clinical comparative decision making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Contributions of ultrasound beyond clinical data in assessing inflammatory disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: current insights and future prospects

Appropriate measures of disease activity need to be valid, reliable and sensitive to change for use in clinical studies while remaining at the same time feasible and practicable for utilization in daily clinical practice. Ultrasonography was shown to be a valid, sensitive and reliable imaging modality for the detection of synovitis in RA, however, it has so far failed to demonstrate superior sensitivity to change as compared with clinical examination. This review examines the current evidence for the use of established measures and/or US, either as an alternative or as a supplementary measure to clinical examination, as tools for monitoring synovitis in RA. It also includes a summary of results of recent studies evaluating clinical examination-based as well as clinical- and US-based multimodal disease activity indices. We review the rationale and limitations of incorporating US into composite disease activity indices and suggest a research roadmap for further studies in this field.

Radiological outcomes in randomized controlled trials on biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review

Several scores are currently used to estimate the radiologic progression of patients affected by rheumatoid arthritis. Modified Sharp score, Genant-modified Sharp score and van der Heijde-modified Sharp score are actually the most commonly used scores in randomized controlled trials on biologic drugs actually available in scientific literature. An intensive literature search (EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE) was performed in order to identify randomized controlled studies reporting on the efficacy of biologic drugs on radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis by means of approved scoring methods such as Sharp score variants. All studies were evaluated for their approach to radiologic outcome, and a global evaluation of trends towards radiologic evaluation was performed. Eighteen studies were identified and analyzed, and data from such randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reported and described regarding their approach to radiologic outcomes. The use of three different scoring methodologies generated similar but non-comparable data; although a big part of the studies reported good efficacy profiles of several biologic drugs on radiologic progression, data from such studies are not comparable as the three different scoring methods are not convertible from one to another. At present, there is no standardization for the evaluation of radiologic outcomes, thus preventing comparison of results obtained by different drugs. The use of a single, standardized and widely approved scoring method would grant the possibility of comparing such data.

Development of a multi-biomarker disease activity test for rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Disease activity measurement is a key component of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Biomarkers that capture the complex and heterogeneous biology of RA have the potential to complement clinical disease activity assessment.

Objectives

To develop a multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) test for rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

Candidate serum protein biomarkers were selected from extensive literature screens, bioinformatics databases, mRNA expression and protein microarray data. Quantitative assays were identified and optimized for measuring candidate biomarkers in RA patient sera. Biomarkers with qualifying assays were prioritized in a series of studies based on their correlations to RA clinical disease activity (e.g. the Disease Activity Score 28-C-Reactive Protein [DAS28-CRP], a validated metric commonly used in clinical trials) and their contributions to multivariate models. Prioritized biomarkers were used to train an algorithm to measure disease activity, assessed by correlation to DAS and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for classification of low vs. moderate/high disease activity. The effect of comorbidities on the MBDA score was evaluated using linear models with adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.

Results

130 candidate biomarkers were tested in feasibility studies and 25 were selected for algorithm training. Multi-biomarker statistical models outperformed individual biomarkers at estimating disease activity. Biomarker-based scores were significantly correlated with DAS28-CRP and could discriminate patients with low vs. moderate/high clinical disease activity. Such scores were also able to track changes in DAS28-CRP and were significantly associated with both joint inflammation measured by ultrasound and damage progression measured by radiography. The final MBDA algorithm uses 12 biomarkers to generate an MBDA score between 1 and 100. No significant effects on the MBDA score were found for common comorbidities.

Conclusion

We followed a stepwise approach to develop a quantitative serum-based measure of RA disease activity, based on 12-biomarkers, which was consistently associated with clinical disease activity levels.

Value of ultrasound in rheumatologic diseases

The use of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology clinical practice has rapidly increased over the past decade. Ultrasound has enabled rheumatologists to diagnose, prognosticate and monitor disease outcome. Although international standardization remains a concern still, the use of ultrasound in rheumatology is expected to grow further as costs fall and the opportunity to train in the technique improves. We present a review of value of ultrasound, focusing on major applications of ultrasound in rheumatologic diseases.

Factors influencing concordance between clinical and ultrasound findings in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical joint examination (CJE) is less time-consuming than ultrasound (US) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Low concordance between CJE and US would indicate that the 2 tests provide different types of information. Knowledge of factors associated with CJE/US concordance would help to select patients and joints for US. Our objective was to identify factors associated with CJE/US concordance.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients with RA requiring tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) antagonist therapy were included in a prospective, multicenter cohort. In each patient, 38 joints were evaluated. Synovitis was scored using CJE, B-mode US (B-US), and power Doppler US (PDUS). Joints whose kappa coefficient (κ) for agreement CJE/US was < 0.1 were considered discordant. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with CJE/US concordance, defined as factors yielding p < 0.05 and OR > 2.

RESULTS

Concordance before TNF-α antagonist therapy varied across joints for CJE/US (κ = -0.08 to 0.51) and B-US/PDUS (κ = 0.30 to 0.67). CJE/US concordance was low at the metatarsophalangeal joints and shoulders (κ < 0.1). Before TNF-α antagonist therapy, a low 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) was associated with good CJE/B-US concordance, and no factors were associated with CJE/PDUS concordance. After TNF-α antagonist therapy, only the joint site was associated with CJE/B-US concordance; joint site and short disease duration were associated with CJE/PDUS concordance.

CONCLUSION

Concordance between CJE and US is poor overall. US adds information to CJE, most notably at the metatarsophalangeal joints and shoulders. Usefulness is decreased for B-US when DAS28 is low and for PDUS when disease duration is short.

Raised circulating tenascin-C in rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to examine whether circulating levels of the pro-inflammatory glycoprotein tenascin-C (TNC) are elevated in musculoskeletal disorders including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to assess in RA whether levels are related to clinical disease status and/or patient response to treatment.

Methods

TNC in serum or plasma was quantified by ELISA. Samples from 4 cohorts of RA patients were examined and compared to normal human subjects and to patients with other inflammatory diseases.

Results

Circulating TNC levels were significantly raised in patients with RA, as well as patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, whilst patients with Sjogren's syndrome displayed levels similar to healthy controls. The highest levels of TNC were observed in RA patients with late stage disease. In early disease TNC levels correlated positively with ultrasound determined erosion scores. Treatment of early RA patients with infliximab plus methotrexate (MTX) resulted in a transient decrease in circulating TNC over the first year of therapy. In contrast, TNC levels increased over time in RA patients receiving MTX alone. In patients treated with infliximab plus MTX, baseline TNC levels significantly correlated with tender joint counts (TJC) at 18 and 54 weeks after initiation of infliximab therapy.

Conclusions

Raised circulating TNC levels are detected in specific inflammatory diseases. Levels are especially high in RA where they may act as a biomarker of bone erosion and a predictor of the effect of infliximab on RA patient joint pain.

Monitoring of nonsteroidal immunosuppressive drugs in patients with lung disease and lung transplant recipients: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Immunosuppressive pharmacologic agents prescribed to patients with diffuse interstitial and inflammatory lung disease and lung transplant recipients are associated with potential risks for adverse reactions. Strategies for minimizing such risks include administering these drugs according to established, safe protocols; monitoring to detect manifestations of toxicity; and patient education. Hence, an evidence-based guideline for physicians can improve safety and optimize the likelihood of a successful outcome. To maximize the likelihood that these agents will be used safely, the American College of Chest Physicians established a committee to examine the clinical evidence for the administration and monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs (with the exception of corticosteroids) to identify associated toxicities associated with each drug and appropriate protocols for monitoring these agents.

METHODS

Committee members developed and refined a series of questions about toxicities of immunosuppressives and current approaches to administration and monitoring. A systematic review was carried out by the American College of Chest Physicians. Committee members were supplied with this information and created this evidence-based guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that these guidelines will improve patient safety when immunosuppressive drugs are given to lung transplant recipients and to patients with diffuse interstitial lung disease.

Ultrasonography is a potent tool for the prediction of progressive joint destruction during clinical remission of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Although "clinical remission" has been a realistic goal of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is evidence that subclinical synovitis is associated with ongoing structural damage even after clinical remission is achieved. In the study reported here, we assessed whether ultrasonography (US) can predict progressive joint destruction during clinical remission of RA.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients with RA in clinical remission based on the disease activity score in 28 joints were recruited for this study. Bilateral wrists and all of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints were examined by power Doppler (PD) ultrasonography (US), and the PD signals were scored semiquantitatively in each joint. The total PD score was calculated as the sum of individual scores for each joint.

RESULTS

Among 22 RA patients who maintained clinical remission during the 2-year follow-up period, seven showed radiographic progression. Radiographic progression was strongly associated with total PD score at entry, with all patients showing radiographic progression having a total PD score of ≥ 2 at entry and none of the patients with a total PD score of ≤ 1 showing any radiographic progression. There was no significant association of therapeutic agents with progressing or non-progressing cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PD-US detects synovitis causing joint destruction even when the patient is in clinical remission. Thus, remission visible on US is essential to reach "true remission" of RA.

Imaging in rheumatoid arthritis

The optimal management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires tools that allow early and accurate disease diagnosis, prediction of poor prognosis and responsive monitoring of therapeutic outcomes. Conventional radiography has been widely used in both clinical and research settings to assess RA joint damage due to its feasibility, but it has limitations in early disease detection and difficulty distinguishing between active treatments in modern trials. Imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) have the advantage of detecting both joint inflammation and damage and hence they can provide additional and unique information. This can be especially useful in the context of early and/or undifferentiated joint disease when detection of soft tissue and bone marrow abnormalities is desirable. This review focusses on the recent literature concerning modern imaging, and provides clinicians with an insight into the role of imaging in modern RA diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring.

A systematic review of infliximab in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Several health authorities have recently revised the indication of infliximab (IFX) to include the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to appraise the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of early therapy with IFX.

Methods

We identified published clinical trials from 1966 to May 2006. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in RA with disease duration of less than 3 years comparing the treatment of methotrexate-IFX (MTX-IFX) with methotrexate-placebo (MTX-placebo).

Results

A total of 8 studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies reported redundant data regarding the vdH Sharp Score. Out of the 5 remaining studies, 4 analyzed structural joint destruction (vdH Sharp Score) and demonstrated a significant reduction in radiographic damage progression in favor of the combination of MTX-IFX compared with MTX-placebo (−4.1 vdH Sharp Score units (95% CI: 3.5; 4.6). Three studies also displayed a benefit of MTX-IFX on functional outcomes of RA (HAQ score) and disease activity measures (DAS, ACR response criteria), although less markedly.

Conclusions

Although data might be skewed because of only 2 existing large studies with concordant data, results from RCTs demonstrate improved efficacy of the combination MTX-IFX compared with MTX-placebo in early RA. However, many early RA patients probably do not require the addition of IFX to achieve a satisfying clinical and radiological course. So far, no evidence has established the superiority of MTX-IFX over MTX-prednisone or other combinations of traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic agents.

Assessment of the natural history of forefoot bursae using ultrasonography in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a twelve-month investigation

OBJECTIVE

To determine the natural history and clinical significance of forefoot bursae over a 12-month period in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Patients with RA (n=149) attending rheumatology outpatient clinics were assessed at baseline. A total of 120 participants, mean±SD age 60.7±12.1 years and mean±SD disease duration 12.99±10.4 years, completed the 12-month followup (98 women, 22 men, 93 rheumatoid factor positive, 24 rheumatoid factor negative, and 3 unknown). Musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) was used to identify forefoot bursae in all of the participants. Clinical markers of disease activity (well-being visual analog scale [VAS], erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28]) and foot symptoms on the Leeds Foot Impact Scale (LFIS) Questionnaire were recorded on both occasions.

RESULTS

Presence of US-detectable forefoot bursae was identified in 93.3% of returnee (n=120) participants (individual mean 3.7, range 0-11) at baseline. Significant associations were identified between bursae presence and patient-reported foot impact for impairment/footwear (LFISIF ; baseline: r=0.226, P=0.013 and 12 months: r=0.236, P=0.009) and activity limitation/participation restriction (LFISAP; baseline: r=0.254, P=0.005 and 12 months: r=0.235, P=0.010). After 12 months, 42.5% of participants had an increase in the number of US-detectable forefoot bursae and 45% of participants had a decrease. Changes in bursae number significantly correlated with changes in LFISIF (r=0.216, P=0.018) and LFISAP (r=0.193, P=0.036). No significant associations were identified between changes in bursae and changes in global well-being VAS, ESR, CRP level, or DAS28.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that forefoot bursae may regress or hypertrophy over time in patients with RA, and that these changes may be associated with self-reported foot impairment and activity restriction.

Imaging of perfusion using ultrasound

Ultrasound can be used to image perfusion in two ways: the traditional one using Doppler and the more recent using microbubble contrast agents. Doppler is simple to use and inexpensive but is limited to larger vessels with faster flow rates. It cannot interrogate the microvasculature because bulk tissue movement is faster than capillary flow. It has been used for liver and tumour flow. Contrast studies are much richer and can assess both the macro- and microcirculation. One approach analyses the time-intensity curves in a region of interest, e.g. a tumour, myocardium, brain, following bolus i.v. injection. Another approach measures the time taken for the microbubbles to cross a vascular bed of interest. These arrival times can be useful for the liver in both diffuse and focal diseases and for the kidney. Features derived from time-intensity curves following bolus i.v. injections of microbubbles form sensitive early indicators of the vascular response of tumours to antivascular drugs. This approach, known as dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US), has been accepted as a valid technique for monitoring tumour response by several authorities.

Linking power Doppler ultrasound to the presence of th17 cells in the rheumatoid arthritis joint

Background

Power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) is increasingly used to assess synovitis in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Prior studies have shown correlations between PDUS scores and vessel counts, but relationships with T cell immunopathology have not been described.

Methodology/Principal Findings

PBMC were isolated from healthy controls (HC) or RA patients and stimulated ex vivo with PMA and ionomycin for 3 hours in the presence of Golgistop. Paired synovial fluid (SF) or synovial tissue (ST) were analysed where available. Intracellular expression of IL-17, IFNγ, and TNFα by CD4+ T cells was determined by flow cytometry. Synovial blood flow was evaluated by PDUS signal at the knees, wrists and metacarpophalangeal joints of RA patients. Serum, SF and fibroblast culture supernatant levels of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) were measured by ELISA. The frequency of IL17+IFNγ-CD4+ T cells (Th17 cells) was significantly elevated in peripheral blood (PB) from RA patients vs. HC (median (IQR) 0.5 (0.28–1.59)% vs. 0.32 (0.21–0.54)%, p = 0.005). Th17 cells were further enriched (mean 6.6-fold increase) in RA SF relative to RA PB. Patients with active disease had a higher percentage of IL-17+ T cells in ST than patients in remission, suggesting a possible role for Th17 cells in active synovitis in RA. Indeed, the percentage of Th17 cells, but not Th1, in SF positively correlated with CRP (r = 0.51, p = 0.04) and local PDUS-defined synovitis (r = 0.61, p = 0.002). Furthermore, patients with high levels of IL-17+CD4+ T cells in SF had increased levels of the angiogenic factor VEGF-A in SF. Finally, IL-17, but not IFNγ, increased VEGF-A production by RA synovial fibroblasts in vitro.

Conclusions/Significance

Our data demonstrate a link between the presence of pro-inflammatory Th17 cells in SF and local PDUS scores, and offer a novel immunological explanation for the observation that rapid joint damage progression occurs in patients with persistent positive PDUS signal.

Biologics: target-specific treatment of systemic and cutaneous autoimmune diseases

Biologics are becoming important in the treatment of systemic and cutaneous autoimmune diseases. They are designed to target specific components of immune system. As the new drugs are capable of targeting proteins in a more specific fashion, yet have lower risks of systemic side-effects, they have considerable advantages over the older immunomodulators. The development of TNF-alpha blockers in the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease and ankylosing spondylitis have been major breakthroughs. Likewise, B-cell depletion has proved to be equally revolutionary for the treatment of lupus, pemphigus, certain vasculitides etc. But all said and done, the development of these molecules and their clinical usage are still at evolving stages. Consensus needs be formed to further categorize the clinical profiles of the patients in whom biologics are to be used in the future, given that the long-term safety profiles of these agents are very much unknown at present.

Improvement in symptoms and signs in the forefoot of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF therapy

Background

Inhibition of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) is an effective way of reducing synovitis and preventing joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet very little is known about its specific effect on foot pain and disability. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether anti-TNF therapy alters the presence of forefoot pathology and/or reduces foot pain and disability.

Methods

Consecutive RA patients starting anti-TNF therapy (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) were assessed for presence of synovial hypertrophy and synovitis in the 2^nd and 5^th metatarso-phalangeal (MTP) joints and plantar forefoot bursal hypertrophy before and 12 weeks after therapy. Tender MTP joints and swollen bursae were established clinically by an experienced podiatrist and ultrasound (US) images were acquired and interpreted by a radiologist. Assessment of patient reported disease impact on the foot was performed using the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI).

Results

31 patients (24 female, 7 male) with RA (12 seronegative, 19 seropositive) completed the study: mean age 59.6 (SD 10.1) years, disease duration 11.1 (SD 10.5) years, and previous number of Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs 3.0 (1.6). Significant differences after therapy were found for Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (t = 4.014, p < 0.001), C-reactive protein (t = 3.889, p = 0.001), 28 joint Disease Activity Score (t = 3.712, p = 0.0001), Visual Analog Scale (t = 2.735, p = 0.011) and Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (t = 3.712, p = 0.001).

Presence of MTP joint synovial hypertrophy on US was noted in 67.5% of joints at baseline and 54.8% of joints at twelve weeks. Presence of plantar forefoot bursal hypertrophy on US was noted in 83.3% of feet at baseline and 75% at twelve weeks. Although there was a trend for reduction in observed presence of person specific forefoot pathology, when the frequencies were analysed (McNemar) this was not significant.

Conclusions

Significant improvements were seen in patient reported foot pain and disability 12 weeks after commencing TNF inhibition in RA, but this may not be enough time to detect changes in forefoot pathology.

Adalimumab for early rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis affects 1% of the population and can result in joint destruction, reduced quality of life and function, loss of work productivity and, in severe cases, early mortality. Recent advances with optimal therapeutic strategies, including early initiation of treatment, tight control of the disease activity aiming for remission of the disease and the advent of biological therapies, have led to improved outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. It is generally agreed that the best outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis occur when treatment is started early. Adalimumab is a new fully humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks the adverse effects of excess TNF-alpha. New studies using this agent early in the course of rheumatoid arthritis indicate superior rates of remission for patients with this disease.

Superiority of SDAI over DAS-28 in assessment of remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients using power Doppler ultrasonography as a gold standard

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the accuracy of composite scores in classifying RA patients who are in remission using the absence of inflammatory activity detected by ultrasound (US) as a gold standard.

METHODS

Ninety-seven RA patients who were classified by their rheumatologists as being in remission were studied. Disease activity was assessed by the DAS-28 and simplified disease activity index (SDAI). US examination was performed in mode B and power Doppler (PD) in 42 joints.

RESULTS

Synovial hypertrophy (SH) and PD were present in 92 (94.8%) and 41 (42.3%) patients. If we consider 'remission' to be the absence of joints with PD signal, no differences were found by DAS-28 between patients in remission and those not in remission, although differences were present by SDAI. We then calculated the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp) and positive likelihood ratio (LR) of different SDAI cut-off points to predict absence of PD signal. SDAI < 5 had an S of 65% (95% CI 52, 76), Sp of 55% (95% CI 39, 69) and LR of 1.45 (95% CI 0.98, 2.15), whereas SDAI < 3.3 had an S of 57% (95% CI 44, 69), Sp of 74% (95% CI 58, 85) and LR of 2.24 (95% CI 1.25, 4.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the SDAI classification of remission is closer to the concept of an absence of inflammatory activity, as defined by the absence of positive PD signal by US.

The vasculature in rheumatoid arthritis: cause or consequence?

The expansion of the synovial lining of joints in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitates an increase in the vascular supply to the synovium, to cope with the increased requirement for oxygen and nutrients. New blood vessel formation -'angiogenesis'- is recognized as a key event in the formation and maintenance of the pannus in RA, suggesting that targeting blood vessels in RA may be an effective future therapeutic strategy. Although many pro-angiogenic factors have been demonstrated to be expressed in RA synovium, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been demonstrated to a have a central involvement in the angiogenic process in RA. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether angiogenesis - whether driven by VEGF and/or other factors - should be considered as a 'cause' or 'consequence' of disease. This ongoing 'chicken vs. egg' debate is difficult, as even the success of angiogenesis inhibition in models of RA does not provide a direct answer to the question. This review will focus on the role of the vasculature in RA, and the contribution of different angiogenic factors in promoting disease. Although no data regarding the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic therapy in RA have been reported to date, the blockade of angiogenesis nevertheless looks to be a promising therapeutic avenue.

Infliximab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Infliximab was the first monoclonal antibody to human necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) developed for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This chimeric antibody binds with high affinity to both soluble and trans-membrane TNF and is able to reduce synovial inflammation, bone resorption and cartilage degradation. The efficacy of infliximab has been observed in active RA despite treatment with multiple disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and in early disease with no prior treatment by methotrexate (MTX). Infliximab has been shown to reduce joint inflammation and to slow radiographic progression, in both clinical and non-clinical responders. Recent data suggest that using infliximab early in RA treatment increases the percentage of clinical remission and allows infliximab discontinuation. The recommended dosage of 3 mg/kg could be increased up to 10 mg/kg with partial efficacy of the dose escalation. Antibodies to infliximab have been observed in 7% to 61% of patients and are associated with a low trough level of infliximab and secondary response failure. Their occurrence could be prevented by co-medication with MTX. The combination of DMARDs other than MTX with infliximab was found to be safe and efficacious. Infections, principally tuberculosis, are increased in treated patients, and the risk is greater at higher dose. Even if the treatment is generally safe and well tolerated, patients treated with infliximab should be closely monitored.

Screening for rheumatoid arthritis with finger joint power Doppler ultrasonography: quantification of conventional power Doppler ultrasonographic scoring

Power Doppler ultrasonography (PD-US) has proved to be a useful technique to measure synovial vascularity due to its capability to provide data that can be used to evaluate the level of joint inflammation and assess rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We have developed a novel PD-US finger joint scoring method that introduces quantitative measurements into the conventional PD-US assessment method. A comparison of the two methods revealed that our novel PD-US method strongly correlates with the conventional method in terms of RA assessment. We performed finger joint PD-US on 69 patients with RA and 70 patients who had multiple joint pain but showed no evidence of inflammatory diseases (non-inflammatory disease, NI) and measured the synovial vascularity of the metacarpophalangeal joints 1-5 and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints 1-5 for each patient. We analyzed the data with receiver operating characteristic analysis and, based on the results for the total vascularity of 20 finger joints, defined a cut-off value of 36% as discriminating between RA and NI. This cut-off value was found to be a valuable tool in screening for RA. We conclude that our finger joint PD-US scoring system is both useful and applicable for diagnosing RA.

Long-term use of adalimumab in the treatment of rheumatic diseases

Adalimumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα), has been evaluated in various randomized placebo-controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. In the short time frame of these trials adalimumab has been shown to be effective in reducing disease activity, slowing radiographic disease progression and improving patients' quality of life, while at the same time demonstrating an acceptable safety profile. Furthermore, release of adalimumab on the market, prospective observational studies, as well as open-label extensions of the original double-blind trials have provided experience and data about the long-term efficacy and safety of the drug. Initial effectiveness, in terms of reducing disease activity, is sustained, while in most cases patients treated with adalimumab experienced a slower radiographic progression and consequently less disability and improved health-related quality-of-life outcomes. Moreover, long-standing treatment of thousands of patients with adalimumab outside the controlled context of clinical trials was not related to new safety signals, with the most common adverse events being respiratory infections. The most common serious adverse events seem to be tuberculosis reactivation, while a putative association with malignant lymphoma development is not yet proven. Besides, both of these adverse reactions pertain to the whole TNFα blocker group. In conclusion, adalimumab is a safe and effective option for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis.