Comparing the disease course of patients with seronegative and seropositive rheumatoid arthritis fulfilling the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria in a treat-to-target setting: 2-year data from the ARCTIC trial

The natural course of health-related quality of life in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia: a longitudinal study in progressors and non-progressors to rheumatoid arthritis

Individuals with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) are at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is unknown whether CSA patients have a deprived health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), how this develops over time, and whether it differs between those who develop RA and those who do not. Using three unique cohorts, we explored the course of HRQoL in CSA patients and after inflammatory arthritis (IA, in this case defined as being either undifferentiated arthritis (UA) or RA) diagnosis. Longitudinal cohort data were used from two CSA cohorts (n = 507) and an IA cohort (n = 282). HRQoL as measured with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 levels (EQ-5D-5 L) questionnaire was compared between CSA patients who develop IA and who do not. We estimated the course of EQ-5D-5 L scores with linear mixed models. In addition, autoantibody-positive and -negative patients were compared. As patients developed IA, their mean EQ-5D-5 L scores deteriorated with 0.12 points (0.03-0.22) over two years, with mobility and usual activities most impacted. Self-care and pain/discomfort were already impacted longer before the diagnosis. Treatment initiation after IA diagnosis showcased an improvement of 0.13 (0.09-0.16) points within 4 months, particularly in the self-care and pain/discomfort dimensions, stabilizing thereafter. In CSA patients who did not develop IA, HRQoL remained stable with a minor improvement of 0.05 (0.02-0.08) points over 2 years. Autoantibody-status had no impact. HRQoL deteriorates before IA diagnosis but improves after treatment initiation. CSA patients who do not develop IA experience stable HRQoL. These findings suggest that early intervention in CSA could prevent deterioration in HRQoL, supporting the potential value of treatment in the CSA phase.

Tender joints in early autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis: Should they be included in the scoring of joint involvement of the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria?

OBJECTIVES

The interpretation of joint tenderness as a sign of inflammation in patients with autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is uncertain. This may hinder disease classification and create selection bias for patient enrollment in clinical trials. Here we tested whether reclassifying the pattern of joint involvement based on swollen joints increases specificity for persistent arthritis in autoantibody-negative early RA.

METHODS

From a prospective early arthritis cohort in the years 2005-2018, all autoantibody-negative patients fulfilling the 2010 ACR/EULAR RA criteria at enrollment were included. Patients were re-classified for the score of swollen joint involvement (1-3=score 2; 4-10=score 3; >10=score 5). Groups were compared for baseline clinical and ultrasonographic (US) characteristics and outcomes after 12 and 36 months.

RESULTS

Of a total of 354 autoantibody-negative patients with 2010-based RA, 39.5 % had a score of swollen joints=5, 47.5 % score=3, and 13 % score=2. We found equal signs of US synovitis and power Doppler of the wrists and metacarpophalangeal joints. Patients with lower swollen joint scores had similar requirements of treatment intensification within month 12 compared with patients with higher baseline inflammation. These latter had the most favourable outcomes, with lower need of second-line treatment strategies within month 36. Exclusion of patients with concomitant fibromyalgia did not modify the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Joint tenderness should be included in the evaluation of the pattern of joint involvement of the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria to correctly classify patients with autoantibody-negative early RA. A score solely based on joint swelling may lead to the erroneous under-selection of patients with persistent arthritis.

Comparative analysis of clinical profile, therapeutic management, and clinical prognosis of patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis following the introduction of a first targeted therapy in a real-life setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate clinical prognosis following the introduction of a first targeted therapy (TT) according to the serological profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to analyze differences in efficacy of TT.

METHOD

This single-center retrospective study included patients with RA who received a first TT between 2000 and 2020. Patients were seropositive (IgM and/or IgA rheumatoid factors plus anti-CCP) or seronegative (without autoantibodies). Various data were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary endpoint was remission (assessed by DAS28) at one and two years.

RESULTS

Among 259 patients, 164 (63.3%) were seropositive and presented higher disease activity and more frequent erosive involvement than seronegative patients at TT introduction. The most prescribed first TTs were etanercept for seronegative RA (47 ([49.5%) versus 41 (25%), p < 0.001) and abatacept for seropositive RA (41 (25%) versus 6 (6.3%), p < 0.001). Remission rates and TT switches were not significantly different between groups. Initial DAS28-CRP and number of painful joints were independent prognostic factors associated with absence of remission at one year (OR 0.46 (0.26, 0.80), p = 0.007) and two years (OR 0.90 (0.82, 0.98), p = 0.027) respectively. Among seropositive patients, the two-year remission rate was not significantly different according to the therapeutic class received (cellular- versus cytokine-targeted).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with seropositive RA showed more active and severe disease than patients with seronegative RA at the introduction of a first TT. Although the choice of the first TT varied according to serological profile and time of analysis, clinical prognosis at one and two years was similar between groups. Key Points • Seropositive versus seronegative RA was more active at start of first targeted therapy. • First-line TTs were etanercept for seronegative RA and abatacept for seropositive RA. • Rate of targeted therapy switches was comparable between both groups. • Remission rates at 1 and 2 years were similar in seropositive and seronegative RA. • Remission rates were similar for cellular and cytokine inhibitors in seropositive RA.

Clinical manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis, including comorbidities, complications, and long-term follow-up

Symmetric inflammatory polyarthritis is the most prominent manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, RA can practically affect any organ system, whether hematologic, neurological, cardiac, lung, skin, eyes, or kidneys. Systemic involvement in RA can be severe when there is interstitial lung disease, scleritis, amyloidosis, pure red cell aplasia, or myelodysplasia. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in patients with RA with a similar cardiovascular risk to that with diabetes mellitus. Patients with RA are at an increased risk of infections or osteoporosis, largely due to treatment-related etiologies. Rheumatoid vasculitis is a devastating long-term complication of RA which is fortunately becoming rarer over time due to better disease activity control. While the risk of mortality overall seems to be reducing over time, the excess mortality risk with RA compared with the general population persists. Fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and physical inactivity remain important comorbidities associated with RA.

Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Ankle Joint in Relation to Rheumatoid Factor Status and Disease Activity in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a form of inflammatory disease whose clinical pattern is largely dependent on the presence of both anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and rheumatoid factor (RF). Although this is still debatable, seronegative RA seems to be a somewhat less serious condition. The present study aimed to evaluate ankle joint ultrasound in relation to RF status and disease activity in RA patients.

Methods

A cross-sectional study involving RA patients from a single center was conducted. Laboratory test evaluations and clinical activity assessments were carried out. The ankle joint was examined using musculoskeletal ultrasound (US).

Results

The study included 100 patients with established RA in total. Eighty-two patients tested positive for RF with a mean age of 42.3, whereas only 18 tested negative with a mean age of 39.6. Patients who tested positive for RF had a longer duration of illness (9.39 ± 5.39 vs. 4.56 ± 3.24). There were no differences in clinical activity scores between the seropositive and seronegative groups. The pathological US findings of any ankle joint showed no differences between the seropositive and seronegative groups. Patients with US findings of tibialis posterior tenosynovitis in the left ankle and synovitis and erosion in the right ankle, particularly in the tibiotalar and talonavicular joints, had significantly high Disease Activity Score 28-Erythrocyte sedimentation rate-scores. The increased disease activity was accompanied by significant erosions on both ankles.

Conclusion

In terms of disease activity, there is no clinically significant difference between seropositive and seronegative RA patients. Sonographic ankle joint abnormalities do not appear to be associated with the patients' RF status. High RA disease activity, on the other hand, is associated with synovitis and erosions, particularly in the talonavicular and tibiotalar joints, as well as tibialis posterior tenosynovitis.

Timely escalation to second-line therapies after failure of methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis does not reduce the risk of becoming difficult-to-treat

BACKGROUND

To investigate the frequency of difficult-to-treat (D2T) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients early escalated to biologic/targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) after failure of treat-to-target with methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

From a prospective cohort of early RA, all patients with their first access in the years 2005-2018, and eventually starting a b/tsDMARD before the end of 2022, were included and followed-up until April 2024. Study outcomes included drug survival on each consecutive b/tsDMARDs, development of D2T (according to the EULAR definition and subsequent modifications), and its predictors.

RESULTS

Of a total cohort of 722 early RA patients treated with initial MTX and followed-up for at least 3 years from diagnosis, 155 (21.5%) had started a b/tsDMARD after a median of 19 months. In more than 70% of the cases, RA was uncontrolled despite optimal doses of MTX of ≥ 15 mg/day. The retention rates of the first and the second b/tsDMARD were approximatively 70% after 1 year but dropped to 40% after 5 years. After a median (IQR) follow up of 72.6 (34.5-134.2) months, 45 patients (29%) fulfilled the EULAR D2T criteria. At multivariable analysis, higher number of swollen joints and worse pain scores were confirmed as predictors of D2T. Furthermore, in this early RA cohort, shorter disease duration at the start of treatment with b/tsDMARDs, together with negativity for autoantibodies, were also independent predictors of D2T.

CONCLUSIONS

Early implementation of treatment after failure of treat-to-target with MTX may not prevent the development of D2T in RA. Patients showing early refractoriness to conventional drugs and those lacking autoantibodies are at higher risk of multiple treatment failures.

On difficulties to define prognostic factors for clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the identification of prognostic factors (PF) capable of predicting disease outcome, response to treatment or success of dose reduction is an important issue, as these factors are intended to serve as a basis for decision-making. The task is complex from the outset, as the definition of disease prognosis or therapeutic prognosis is not uniquevocal. The heterogeneity of the definitions used partly explains the failure to identify PF that can be applied at an individual level. But other factors also contribute. First, the scope of the disease studied is too broad, including nosologically different entities. Second, potential PF are only measured at a single point of time, whereas changes over a period of time should be taken into account to a greater extent, not forgetting the potential impact of the treatment received during this period. Beyond these limiting factors, one of the main obstacles to the identification of PF is probably the fact that the phase of the disease is not sufficiently taken into account. Predicting the disease outcome when it is well established is a more complex challenge than when it is just beginning, as many factors are likely to interfere. The same applies to therapeutic PF, which should be determined according to disease duration. Difficulties also arise from the approaches used, which are often restricted to a single field of interest whereas they should be much more integrative and call on new large-scale data analysis tools with a view to precision medicine.In RA, prognosis can be defined at two levels: disease outcome, including joint damage and risk of extra-articular manifestations and/or complications, and treatment outcome, including response to therapy, risk of adverse effects and drug-free remission.

Differences in referral path, clinical and radiographic outcomes between seronegative and seropositive rheumatoid arthritis Mexican Mestizo patients: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

The study compared the referral path, the first two-year clinical outcomes, and the first five-year radiographic outcomes between seronegative patients (SNPs) from a recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis dynamic cohort initiated in 2004 and seropositive patients (SPPs). Predictors of incidental erosive disease were investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Up to March 2023, one independent observer reviewed the charts from 188 patients with at least two years of clinical assessments and up to five years of annual radiographic assessments. SNPs were defined when baseline RF and ACPA serum titers were within local normal ranges. The erosive disease was defined on hand and/or foot radiographs when at least one unequivocal cortical bone defect was detected. The incidental erosive disease was defined in baseline erosive disease-free patients who developed erosions at follow-ups. Multivariate Cox regression analyses identified hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for factors to predict incidental erosive disease.

RESULTS

There were 17 (9%) SNPs, and they had a shorter time from symptoms onset to first physician evaluation, visited a lower number of physicians, and received less intensive treatment at referral and during the first years of follow-up than SPPs. Also, they had fewer 0-66 swollen joints and were less frequently persistent on therapy. The erosive disease was detected only in SPPs, and its frequency increased from 10.1% at baseline to 36.1% at the five-year radiographic assessment. There were 53 (31.4%) patients with incidental erosive disease, and differences between SPPs and SNPs were statistically significant at the feet location. Incidental erosive disease was predicted by baseline ACPA, ESR, substantial morning stiffness, and cumulative CRP.

CONCLUSIONS

SNPs showed mild differences in their referral path and clinical outcomes compared to SPPs. However, erosive disease was detected only in SPPs and was predicted by baseline and cumulative clinical and serologic variables.

Clinical Phenotypes, Serological Biomarkers, and Synovial Features Defining Seropositive and Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Literature Review

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disorder which can lead to long-term joint damage and significantly reduced quality of life if not promptly diagnosed and adequately treated. Despite significant advances in treatment, about 40% of patients with RA do not respond to individual pharmacological agents and up to 20% do not respond to any of the available medications. To address this large unmet clinical need, several recent studies have focussed on an in-depth histological and molecular characterisation of the synovial tissue to drive the application of precision medicine to RA. Currently, RA patients are clinically divided into "seropositive" or "seronegative" RA, depending on the presence of routinely checked antibodies. Recent work has suggested that over the last two decades, long-term outcomes have improved significantly in seropositive RA but not in seronegative RA. Here, we present up-to-date differences in epidemiology, clinical features, and serological biomarkers in seronegative versus seropositive RA and discuss how histological and molecular synovial signatures, revealed by recent large synovial biopsy-based clinical trials, may be exploited to refine the classification of RA patients, especially in the seronegative group.

Aberrant B-cell activation and B-cell subpopulations in rheumatoid arthritis: analysis by clinical activity, autoantibody seropositivity, and treatment

Few studies analyze the role of B-cell subpopulations in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathophysiology. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the differences in B-cell subpopulations and B-cell activation according to disease activity, RA subtype, and absence of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) therapy. These subgroups were compared with control subjects (CS). One hundred and thirty-nine subjects were included, of which 114 were RA patients, and 25 were controls. Patients were divided into 99 with seropositive RA, 6 with seronegative RA, and 9 without DMARDs. The patients with seropositive RA were subclassified based on the DAS28 index. A seven-color multicolor flow cytometry panel was used to identify B-cell immunophenotypes and cell activation markers. There were no changes in total B-cell frequencies between RA patients and controls. However, a lower frequency of memory B cells and pre-plasmablasts was observed in seropositive RA compared to controls (P < 0.0001; P = 0.0043, respectively). In contrast, a higher frequency of mature B cells was observed in RA than in controls (P = 0.0002). Among patients with RA, those with moderate activity had a higher percentage of B cells (P = 0.0021). The CD69+ marker was increased (P < 0.0001) in RA compared to controls, while the CD40+ frequency was decreased in patients (P < 0.0001). Transitional, naïve, and double-negative B-cell subpopulations were higher in seronegative RA than in seropositive (P < 0.01). In conclusion, in seropositive and seronegative RA patients, there are alterations in B-cell activation and B-cell subpopulations, independently of clinical activity and DMARDs therapy.

Influence of anti-carbamylated protein antibodies on disease activity and joint erosions in seronegative and seropositive rheumatoid arthritis

Anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) antibodies are promising biomarkers in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), although their significance in seronegative disease (SNRA) remains uncertain. To assess the influence of anti-CarP antibodies on disease activity and erosive joint damage in SNRA patients. In RA patients, rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, and anti-CarP antibodies were measured. Disease activity was assessed using DAS28-CRP and SDAI indices, while musculoskeletal ultrasound identified bone erosions. A total of 77 patients were enrolled, comprising 49 with seropositive RA (SPRA) and 28 with SNRA. Notably, 28% of SPRA and 10% of SNRA patients were positive to anti-CarP antibodies. Anti-CarP-positive patients exhibited elevated C-reactive protein (median 10.6, interquartile range 4.6-20.0 vs. 3.4, 1.7-9.9 mg/L; p = 0.005), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (34, 19-46 vs. 16, 7-25 mm/h; p = 0.002), DAS28-CRP (3.2, 2.6-4.2 vs. 2.6, 1.9-3.5; p = 0.048), and SDAI (19.9, 6.3-32.1 vs. 10.9, 5.5-18.1; p = 0.034) indices. Multivariate analysis revealed RF positivity as the sole predictor for anti-CarP antibodies (odds ratio [OR] = 5.9). Musculoskeletal ultrasound revealed bone erosions in 36% of RA patients; 35% among anti-CarP-negative patients and 40% among anti-CarP-positive patients. Notably, RF presence (OR = 44.3) and DAS28-CRP index (OR = 2.4) emerged as predictors of musculoskeletal ultrasound-confirmed erosive joint disease. Anti-CarP antibodies are detected at similar frequencies among both SPRA and SNRA patients. While associated with increased disease activity, these antibodies did not correlate with increased erosive joint damage.

Autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis: still a challenge for the rheumatologist

Increased research over the past 30 years has greatly improved the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical aspects of autoantibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in improved management and outcomes. In contrast, the subset of rheumatoid arthritis that does not have autoantibodies (such as rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein autoantibodies) remains less well defined in its pathogenic mechanisms. Autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis continues to pose diagnostic challenges, might respond differently to therapies, and appears to be burdened with different comorbidities and outcomes. The clear separation of rheumatoid arthritis according to serotypes is still a subject of uncertainty and controversy, and studies specifically focused on comparing rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis-like arthritides that do not have autoantibodies remain scarce. The purpose of this Review is to summarise the peculiarities that make autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis different from its autoantibody-positive counterpart, with the aim of generating debate and stimulating further research on this challenging condition.

When Autoantibodies Are Missing: The Challenge of Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis

Seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (SNRA) is characterized by the absence of both rheumatoid factor (RF) and antibodies against the cyclic citrullinated protein (ACPA) in serum. However, the differences between the two forms of RA are more complex and have not yet been definitively characterized. Several lines of evidences support the idea that there are specific elements of the two forms, including genetic background, epidemiology, pathogenesis, severity of progression over time, and response to therapy. Clinical features that may differentiate SNRA from SPRA are also suggested by data obtained from classical radiology and newer imaging techniques. Although new evidence seems to provide additional help in differentiating the two forms of RA, their distinguishing features remain largely elusive. It should also be emphasized that the distinctive features of RA forms, if not properly recognized, can lead to the underdiagnosis of SNRA, potentially missing the period called the "window of opportunity" that is critical for early diagnosis, timely treatment, and better prognosis. This review aims to summarize the data provided in the scientific literature with the goal of helping clinicians diagnose SNRA as accurately as possible, with emphasis on the most recent findings available.

Drug-survival profiling of second-line biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: Choice of another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor or a biologic of different mode of action?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the best choice of second-line therapy between tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor (TNFi) and biologics of different-mode-of-action (BDMA-rituximab/tocilizumab/abatacept) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by evaluating drug-survival following discontinuation of the first-line TNFi.

METHODS

This retrospective drug-survival study was performed across two different hospitals by conventional-statistics and machine-learning approach.

RESULTS

From a total of 435 patients, 213 (48.9%; TNFi = 122, BDMA = 91) discontinued their second-line biologic {median drug-survival: TNFi, 27 months [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 22-32] vs BDMA, 37 months (95%CI 32-52)}. As a second-line biologic, BDMA was likely to reduce the risk of treatment-discontinuation [hazard-ratio (HR) 0.63, 95%CI 0.48-0.83] compared to TNFi, but only in seropositive-patients (HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.38-0.73), not in seronegative-RA. Drug-survival benefit of BDMA over TNFi was not observed if the seropositive-patients were previously exposed to monoclonal-TNFi (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.49-1.22) versus soluble-TNFi (etanercept/biosimilars) or if the first-line TNFi was terminated within 23.9 months of initiation (HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.56-1.68).

CONCLUSIONS

BDMA, as a second-line biologic, is more likely to be sustained in seropositive-patients, particularly without prior exposure to monoclonal-TNFi. The drug-survival benefit of BDMA was not observed in seronegative-patients or if the first-line TNFi was stopped within 2 years.

Distinct innate and adaptive immunity phenotypic profile at the circulating single-cell level in Psoriatic Arthritis

Mass cytometry was employed to investigate 47 circulating leukocyte subsets in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA, n = 16) compared to healthy controls (n = 13), seropositive (RF and/or anti-CCP, n = 12) and seronegative (n = 9) RA patients. Comparing PsA to controls, different cell frequencies were found in both innate and adaptive immunity cell subsets, as well as in cells bridging innate and adaptive immunity. In some T-cell subsets increased costimulatory molecules' expression in PsA, was also noted..No changes were observed in patients who remained disease-active after 3 months of treatment, in contrast to those who achieved remission/low-disease activity. Comparing PsA to seropositive RA, elevated frequencies of naïve and activated CD8⁺ T-cells, B-cells, MAIT/iNKT and ILCs were found, while the opposite was the case for terminal effector, senescent, and Th2-like-cells. Strikingly, the composition of the leukocyte pool in PsA was comparable to seronegative RA, providing evidence for the pathogenetic similarities between these two entities.

Patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis have a different phenotype than seropositive patients: A clinical and ultrasound study

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory disease whose clinical phenotype largely depends on the presence of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA). Seronegative RA appears to be a less severe disease, but this remains controversial. This study aimed to assess whether seronegative patients show a less severe disease than seropositive patients.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on RA outpatients from a single center. Clinical activity scales, laboratory evaluations, and cardiovascular risk scores were assessed. Musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) examinations were performed.

Results

One hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled. Eighty-five were seropositive (76% women) and 29 seronegative (93% women). Seropositive patients had a younger age at disease onset (43 ± 14 vs. 54 ± 11; p = 0.001) and used sulfasalazine (47 vs. 17%; p = 0.004) and glucocorticoids (36 vs. 10%; p = 0.007) more frequently. No differences in clinical activity scales and in 10-year cardiovascular risk were observed. Pathological US data were found more frequently in seropositive patients in the 2^nd metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, both in grayscale (71 vs. 38%; p = 0.008) and in power Doppler (PD; 53 vs. 9%; p < 0.001); erosions (36 vs. 9%; p = 0.020) were also more frequent. We found greater severity of PD signals in the 2nd MCP and 3rd MCP joints of the seropositive patients, while synovitis severity was higher only in the 2nd MCP joints. The percentage of total joints with erosions (9 vs. 1%; p < 0.001) and 2nd MCP joints with erosions (25 vs. 7%; p < 0.001) was higher in seropositive patients.

Conclusion

RA patients show a differentiated phenotype according to their ACPA and RF status. In seronegative patients, RA begins later in life and has a lower requirement for antirheumatic therapies. On US evaluation, seropositive patients show more joint damage, especially in MCP joints. Despite this, long-term cardiovascular risk is similar among RA patients, regardless of their RF and ACPA status.

The Impact of Seropositivity on Systemic Bone Loss in Rheumatoid Arthritis-A 3-Year Interim Analysis of a Longitudinal Observational Cohort Study

Objective

To explore the impact of seropositivity on systemic bone loss in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

We conducted an interim analysis of the RA registry. Patients were examined with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and again 3 years later. Participants were grouped into seropositive (SPRA) and seronegative (SNRA) based on the presence or absence of rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA). After matching (1:2) for age and sex, SNRA and SPRA patients were divided into groups A and B. Each matched group (A or B) was further subdivided according to the number of antibodies present (0, group I; 1, group II; 2, group III). Multiple ordinary least squares regression was used with the dependent variables to develop a model to predict bone mineral density (BMD) change.

Results

A total of 477 participants who completed a 3-year observation period were included. After matching, 312 participants were enrolled (group A, 104; group B, 208). Three years later, group B had significant BMD reduction in the femoral neck (FN) (p < 0.001), total hip (TH) (p = 0.001), and first through fourth lumbar vertebrae (L1–4) (p = 0.006), while group A had bone loss only at FN (p = 0.002). Groups I, II, and III included 104, 52, and 156 participants, respectively. Compared to baseline, BMD decreased significantly at FN (p = 0.002) in group I, FN (p < 0.001) in group II, and FN (p < 0.001), TH (p = 0.002), and L1–4 (p = 0.016) in group III. In terms of regression-adjusted percent change in BMD, more significantly negative changes were found at all measured sites in group B (p < 0.001, all) and at TH and L1–4 within groups I-III (p for trend < 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively). Regardless of antibodies, anti-osteoporotic therapy can preserve bone density in RA patients.

Conclusion

After 3 years, SPRA patients lost more bone density than SNRA patients. More attention should be paid to SPRA patients, especially those with double-positive antibodies, including a vigorous evaluation of BMD and fracture risk. Anti-osteoporotic therapy can prevent BMD loss irrespective of autoantibodies.

Seronegative rheumatic arthritis has milder inflammation and bone erosion in an ultrasound study of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs)-naïve Chinese cohort

Background

Compared with the seropositive rheumatic arthritis (sp-RA), seronegative rheumatic arthritis (sn-RA) lacks ultrasound (US) research. It is unknown whether sn-RA patients had more severe synovitis than sp-RA ones at the same level of swollen joint counts (SJCs). We designed the US study to find out the answers.

Methods

All cases satisfied the 2010 classification criteria, first diagnosed and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) naïve with the characteristics of abnormal swelling or pain in the wrist, proximal interphalangeal (PIPs), and metacarpophalangeal (MCPs) joints. Demographic data was collected. US examinations, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analogue scale scores (VASs), patient global assessment (PGA), physician’s global assessment (PhGA), disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28), and van der Heijde-modified Sharp score (vdHSS) were used to evaluate the disease activity among these groups. Anticitrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA), rheumatoid factor (RF) and SJCs were used to divide the patients into 3 groups, which were defined as follows: Group A, sp-RA (positive RF and/or ACPA) with SJC >10; Group B, sp-RA with SJC ≤10; and Group C, sn-RA (all negative RF and ACPA with SJC >10 due to the criteria).

Results

A total of 139 cases were recruited. Fifty-six were Group A, 54 were Group B, and 29 were Group C. All indexes above and the total US scores were significantly lower in Group C than Group A (both groups with SJC >10) (ESR, CRP, VASs, PGA, PhGA, DAS28, vdHSS, US total score respectively: 58.8 vs. 37.5, P=0.009; 37.5 vs. 17.8, P=0.008; 61.7 vs. 52.8, P=0.032; 62.2 vs. 53.9, P=0.031; 59.8 vs. 48.3, P=0.029; 6.92 vs. 5.56, P=0.000; 61.7 vs. 44.5, P=0.023; 31.4 vs. 20.9, P=0.000). The difference of the total US scores above was mostly contributed by the symptoms of synovitis. The total US scores were prominently lower in Group C with the duration over 2 years (2–5 years, >5 years, respectively compared to <2 years: 16.3 vs. 27.4, P=0.044; 16.5 vs. 27.4, P=0.048), and vdHSS were remarkably higher in almost all groups with a duration of over 5 years. For the patients with a duration over 2 years, bone erosions occurred earlier in sp-RA than in sn-RA patients.

Conclusions

Sn-RA patients had milder synovitis than sp-RA ones at the same extent of disease activity. In addition, sn-RA had delayed progress of bone erosion than the sp-RA group.

A Narrative Literature Review Comparing the Key Features of Musculoskeletal Involvement in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Although the clinical approach to the management of musculoskeletal manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is often similar to that of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there are distinct differences in immunopathogenesis, structural and imaging phenotypes and therapeutic evidence. Additionally, there are few published comparisons of these diseases. The objective of this narrative literature review is to compare the immunopathogenesis, structural features, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) studies and management of joint manifestations in RA and SLE. We highlight the key similarities and differences between the two diseases. Overall, the literature evaluated indicates that synovitis and radiographical progression are the key features in RA, while inflammation without swelling, tendinitis and tenosynovitis are more prominent features in SLE. In addition, the importance of defining patients with RA by the presence or absence of autoantibodies and categorizing patients with SLE by synovitis detected by musculoskeletal ultrasound and by structural phenotype (non-deforming, non-erosive arthritis, Jaccoud’s arthropathy and ‘Rhupus’) with respect to joint manifestations will also be discussed. An increased understanding of the joint manifestations in RA and SLE may inform evidence-based clinical decisions for both diseases.

Rheumatoid arthritis, as a clinical disease, but not rheumatoid arthritis-associated autoimmunity, is linked to cardiovascular events

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality. CV events are particularly high in patients with RA-specific autoimmunity, including rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA), raising the question whether RA-specific autoimmunity itself is associated with CV events.

Methods

New CV events (myocardial infarction, stroke or death by CV cause) were recorded in 20,625 subjects of the Electricité de France – Gaz de France (GAZEL) cohort. Self-reported RA cases in the GAZEL cohort were validated by phone interview on the basis of a specific questionnaire. In 1618 subjects, in whom plasma was available, RF and ACPA were measured. A piecewise exponential Poisson regression was used to analyze the association of CV events with presence of RA as well as RA-specific autoimmunity (without RA).

Results

CV events in GAZEL were associated with age, male sex, smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus (HR from 1.06 to 1.87, p < 0.05). Forty-two confirmed RA cases were identified. Confirmed RA was significantly associated with CV risk increase (HR of 3.03; 95% CI: 1.13–8.11, p = 0.03) independently of conventional CV risk factors. One hundred seventy-eight subjects showed RF or ACPA positivity without presence of RA. CV events were not associated with ACPA positivity (HR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.47–4.84, p = 0.48) or RF positivity (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.55–2.40, p = 0.70) in the absence of RA.

Conclusions

RA, as a clinical chronic inflammatory disease, but not mere positivity for RF or ACPA in the absence of clinical disease is associated with increased CV risk.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02722-z.

Factors associated with treatment satisfaction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from the biological register RABBIT

Objective

To assess satisfaction with the effectiveness and tolerability of treatments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients from the RABBIT register, starting a biological (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), or a conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD treatment after ≥1 csDMARD failure, were included. Treatment satisfaction was measured after 1 year of treatment in four categories and binarised for analysis. Logistic regression models were performed to calculate ORs for factors associated with treatment satisfaction.

Results

Data of 10 646 patients (74% women, mean 58 years) were analysed. At baseline, 55% of the patients were satisfied with the efficacy and 68% with the tolerability of their previously given treatments. After 1 year, 85% of the patients were satisfied with treatment effectiveness and 90% with tolerability. Baseline satisfaction (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.58 to 3.44), seropositivity (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57), reduction of DAS28 (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.46) and pain (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.31), and the improvement of physical capacity (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29) were positively associated with treatment satisfaction at follow-up while glucocorticoids (GCs) >5 mg/day, depression, fibromyalgia, obesity, prior bDMARDs and therapy changes were negatively associated. The impact of GC on satisfaction was dose-dependent, becoming strongest for GC >15 mg (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.34). A 5 mg/day reduction within 12 months was positively associated with satisfaction regarding efficacy (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.27) and tolerability (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.21).

Conclusion

Most patients were satisfied with their treatment’s effectiveness and tolerability after 1 year of treatment. Tapering GCs was positively associated with the improvement of patients’ satisfaction.

The impact of different (rheumatoid) arthritis phenotypes on patients' lives

Objectives

To compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains between three arthritis phenotypes [undifferentiated arthritis (UA), autoantibody-negative RA (RA⁻) and autoantibody-positive RA (RA⁺)] at diagnosis, after 2 years and over time.

Methods

All UA (n = 130), RA⁻ (n = 176) and RA⁺ (n = 331) patients from the tREACH trial, a stratified single-blinded trial with a treat-to-target approach, were used. PRO comparisons between phenotypes at baseline and after 2 years were performed with analysis of variance, while a linear mixed model compared them over time. Effect sizes were weighted against the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for each PRO.

Results

RA⁻ patients had a higher disease burden compared with RA⁺ and UA. At baseline and after 2 years, RA⁻ patients had more functional impairment and a poorer Physical Component Summary (PCS) compared with the other phenotypes, while they only scored worse for general health and morning stiffness duration at baseline. The MCIDs were exceeded at baseline, except for functional ability between RA⁺ and UA, while after 2 years only the MCID of the PCS was exceeded by RA⁻ compared with UA and RA. After 2 years the PROs of all phenotypes improved, but PROs measuring functioning were still worse compared with the general population, even when patients had low disease activity.

Conclusion

RA⁻ patients had the highest disease burden of all phenotypes. Although most patients have low disease activity after treatment, all clinical phenotypes still have a similar significant impact on patients’ lives, which is mainly physical. Therefore it is important to assess and address PROs in daily practice because of persistent disease burden despite low disease activity.

Trial registration

ISRCTN26791028.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Quantifying Potential Cost-Savings Through an Alternative Imaging-Based Diagnostic Process in Presumptive Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background

Seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (SRA) is a condition that is not well understood and difficult to confirm by a conventional diagnostic process. We aimed to quantify the potential cost-savings of an alternative diagnostic process (ADP) imaging-based, for patients with presumptive SRA from everyday clinical practice.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis for patients with presumptive SRA who tested negative for both rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, through an ADP imaging-based, that is a standard clinical practice in our center. After we confirmed the diagnosis of SRA or reclassified patients in terms of another proper diagnosis, we estimate direct costs in two scenarios: a conventional and ADP. We compared the cost of RA treatment during the first year against the cost of the most misdiagnosed treatment (osteoarthritis) found after applying the ADP to determine potential cost-savings.

Results

We included 440 patients with a presumptive diagnosis of SRA. According to the imaging-based ADP, SRA was confirmed in 106/440 (24.1%), unspecified RA in 9/440 (2.0%), and osteoarthritis in 325/440 (73.9%) of those patients. Although the costs of conventional diagnosis per patient is lower than those of ADP ($59,20 USD vs $269,57 USD), we found a potential drug cost-savings of $1,570,775.20 US Dollars after 1 year of correct treatment.

Conclusion

An alternative diagnosis process, including X-rays, US and MRI imaging, and clinical and blood-test assessment, not only increased diagnostic certainty in patients referred for evaluation of presumptive SRA but also suggested a potential cost-savings in pharmacological treatments avoided in misdiagnosed patients.

Prognostic Factors for Radiographic Progression in Patients with Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis

(1) Background: It has long been suggested that seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA) represents a clinical entity quite distinct from that of seropositive. However, analytical studies of seronegative RA dedicated to clinical outcomes regarding radiographic progression and related risk factors are scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate radiographic outcome and prognostic factors for radiographic progression in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. (2) Methods: Subjects included RA patients reported as seronegative for both rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody, who were treated at Jeju National University Hospital in South Korea between 2003 and 2016, including follow-up of at least 2 years. All patients fulfilled 1987 ACA or 2010 ACR/EULAR RA criteria. Radiographic progression was measured by yearly change in the Sharp van der Heijde (SvdH) score during follow-up periods. Medical records, laboratory and radiographic data were retrospectively analyzed, and linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate prognostic factors for radiographic progression in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. (3) Results: In total, 116 patients with seronegative RA were observed and 43 (37.1%) patients demonstrated radiographic damage during follow-up period. Mean age at diagnosis was 48 years and 86 (74.1%) patients were female. Symptom duration at diagnosis was 1.3 years and mean follow-up duration was 5.2 years. Patients with radiographic damage at diagnosis were 14 (12.1%) and mean SvdH score was 6.8 at diagnosis. Radiographic damage and SvdH at diagnosis significantly correlated with radiographic progression in patients with seronegative RA after adjusting age, sex, symptom duration, number of active synovitis, and CRP at diagnosis (β-coefficient 6.5 ± 1.84; p = 0.001 and β-coefficient 0.12 ± 0.02; p < 0.001, respectively). (4) Conclusions: This study determined that radiographic damage and SvdH at diagnosis were predictive factors in progression of radiographic damage in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. A large comparative study dedicated to this issue in seronegative RA is required.

From Rheumatoid Factor to Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies and Anti-Carbamylated Protein Antibodies for Diagnosis and Prognosis Prediction in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease mainly involving synovial inflammation and articular bone destruction. RA is a heterogeneous disease with diverse clinical presentations, prognoses and therapeutic responses. Following the first discovery of rheumatoid factors (RFs) 80 years ago, the identification of both anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and anti-carbamylated protein antibodies (anti-CarP Abs) has greatly facilitated approaches toward RA, especially in the fields of early diagnosis and prognosis prediction of the disease. Although these antibodies share many common features and can function synergistically to promote disease progression, they differ mechanistically and have unique clinical relevance. Specifically, these three RA associating auto-antibodies (autoAbs) all precede the development of RA by years. However, while the current evidence suggests a synergic effect of RF and ACPA in predicting the development of RA and an erosive phenotype, controversies exist regarding the additive value of anti-CarP Abs. In the present review, we critically summarize the characteristics of these autoantibodies and focus on their distinct clinical applications in the early identification, clinical manifestations and prognosis prediction of RA. With the advancement of treatment options in the era of biologics, we also discuss the relevance of these autoantibodies in association with RA patient response to therapy.

Use of ICD-10 diagnosis codes to identify seropositive and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis when lab results are not available

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody tests are often measured at the time of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosis but may not be repeated and therefore not available in electronic health record (EHR) data; lab test results are unavailable in most administrative claims databases. ICD10 coding allows discrimination between rheumatoid factor positive (M05) ("seropositive") and seronegative (M06) patients, but the validity of these codes has not been examined.

METHODS

Using the ACR's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) EHR-based registry and U.S. MarketScan data where some patients have lab test results, we assembled two cohorts. Seropositive RA was defined having a M05 diagnosis code on the second rheumatologist encounter, M06 similarly identified seronegative RA, and RF and anti-CCP lab test results were the gold standard. We calculated sensitivity (Se) and positive predicted value (PPV) of the M05/M06 diagnosis codes.

RESULTS

We identified 43,581 eligible RA patients (RISE) and 1185 (MarketScan) with RF or anti-CCP lab test results available. Using M05 as the proxy for seropositive RA, sensitivity = 0.76, PPV = 0.82 in RISE, and Se = 0.73, PPV = 0.84 in MarketScan. Results for M06 as a proxy for seronegative RA were comparable in RISE, albeit somewhat lower in MarketScan. Over 3 consecutive visits, approximately 90% of RA patients were coded consistently using either M05 or M06 at each visit.

CONCLUSION

Under ICD10, M05 and M06 diagnosis codes are reasonable proxies to identify seropositive and seronegative RA with high sensitivity and positive predictive values if lab test results are not available.

Enhanced treatment strategies and distinct disease outcomes among autoantibody-positive and -negative rheumatoid arthritis patients over 25 years: A longitudinal cohort study in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Based on different genetic and environmental risk factors and histology, it has been proposed that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) consists of 2 types: autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA. However, until now, this remained hypothetical. To assess this hypothesis, we studied whether the long-term outcomes differed for these 2 groups of RA patients.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort, 1,285 consecutive RA patients were included between 1993 and 2016 and followed yearly. Treatment protocols in routine care improved over time, irrespective of autoantibody status, and 5 inclusion periods were used as instrumental variables: 1993-1996, delayed mild disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) initiation (reference period); 1997-2000, early mild DMARDs; 2001-2005, early methotrexate; 2006-2010, early methotrexate followed by treat-to-target adjustments; 2011-2016, similar to 2006-2010 plus additional efforts for very early referral. Three long-term outcomes were studied: sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR) (persistent absence of clinical synovitis after DMARD cessation), mortality, and functional disability measured by yearly Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment response in the short term (disease activity) was measured by Disease Activity Score-28 with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). Linear mixed models and Cox regression were used, stratified for autoantibody positivity, defined as IgG anti-CCP2 and/or IgM rheumatoid factor positivity. In total, 823 patients had autoantibody-positive RA (mean age 55 years, 67% female); 462 patients had autoantibody-negative RA (age 60 years, 64% female). Age, gender, and percentage of autoantibody-positive patients were stable throughout the inclusion periods. Disease activity significantly decreased over time within both groups. SDFR rates increased after introduction of treat-to-target (hazard ratio [HR] 2006-2010 relative to 1993-1996: 3.35 [95% CI 1.46 to 7.72; p = 0.004]; HR 2011-2016: 4.57 [95% CI 1.80 to 11.6; p = 0.001]) in autoantibody-positive RA, but not in autoantibody-negative RA. In autoantibody-positive RA, mortality decreased significantly after the introduction of treat-to-target treatment adjustments (HR 2006-2010: 0.56 [95% CI 0.34 to 0.92; p = 0.023]; HR 2011-2016: 0.33 [95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; p = 0.010]), but not in autoantibody-negative RA (HR 2006-2010: 0.79 [95% CI 0.40 to 1.56; p = 0.50]; HR 2011-2016: 0.36 [95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; p = 0.13]). Similarly, functional disability improved in autoantibody-positive RA for the periods after 2000 relative to 1993-1996 (range -0.16 [95% CI -0.29 to -0.03; p = 0.043] to -0.32 [95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; p < 0.001] units of improvement), but not in autoantibody-negative RA (range 0.10 [95% CI -0.12 to 0.31; p = 0.38] to -0.13 [95% CI -0.34 to 0.07; p = 0.20] units of improvement). Limitations to note were that treatment was not randomized-but it was protocolized and instrumental variable analysis was used to obtain comparable groups-and that a limited spread of ethnicities was included.

CONCLUSIONS

Although disease activity has improved in both autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA in recent decades, the response in long-term outcomes differed. We propose that it is time to subdivide RA into autoantibody-positive RA (type 1) and autoantibody-negative RA (type 2), in the hope that this leads to stratified treatment in RA.

Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies are associated with radiographic damage but not disease activity in early rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed in 2006-2011

Objective: The discovery of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and the introduction of new therapeutic options have had profound impacts on early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care. Since ACPA status, most widely assessed as reactivity to cyclic citrullinated peptides (CCPs), influences treatment decisions in early RA, we aimed to determine whether anti-CCP remains a predictor of disease activity and radiographic joint damage in more recent 'real-world' early RA. Method: Two observational early RA cohorts from Sweden enrolled patients in 1996-1999 (TIRA-1, n = 239) and 2006-2009 (TIRA-2, n = 444). Clinical and radiographic data and ongoing treatment were prospectively collected up to 3 years. Two other cohorts served as confirmation cohorts (TRAM-1, with enrolment 1996-2000, n = 249; and TRAM-2, 2006-2011, n = 528). Baseline anti-CCP status was related to disease activity, pharmacotherapy, and radiographic joint damage according to Larsen score. Results: In the TIRA-1 cohort, anti-CCP-positive patients had significantly higher 28-joint Disease Activity Score, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein level, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate during follow-up compared with anti-CCP-negative patients. In TIRA-2, no such differences were found, but baseline anti-CCP positivity was associated with higher 3 year Larsen score (5.4 vs 3.5, p = 0.039). In TRAM-2, anti-CCP also predicted radiographic damage (8.9 vs 6.7, p = 0.027), with no significant differences in disease activity. Conclusion: In the early RA cohorts recruiting patients in 2006-2011, baseline anti-CCP positivity was not associated with disease activity over time, but was associated with increased radiographic damage at follow-up. Hence, close radiographic monitoring is warranted in early anti-CCP-positive RA regardless of disease activity.

Prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases with plant virus nanoparticles

Plant viruses are natural, self-assembling nanostructures with versatile and genetically programmable shells, making them useful in diverse applications ranging from the development of new materials to diagnostics and therapeutics. Here, we describe the design and synthesis of plant virus nanoparticles displaying peptides associated with two different autoimmune diseases. Using animal models, we show that the recombinant nanoparticles can prevent autoimmune diabetes and ameliorate rheumatoid arthritis. In both cases, this effect is based on a strictly peptide-related mechanism in which the virus nanoparticle acts both as a peptide scaffold and as an adjuvant, showing an overlapping mechanism of action. This successful preclinical testing could pave the way for the development of plant viruses for the clinical treatment of human autoimmune diseases.

The Impact of Cigarette Smoking on Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Narrative Review

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation and subsequent proliferation of synovial tissues, which eventually leads to cartilage and bone destruction without effective treatments. Anti-citrullinated cyclic peptide/protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF) are two main characteristic autoantibodies found in RA patients and are associated with unfavorable disease outcomes. Although etiologies and causes of the disease have not been fully clarified yet, it is likely that interactive contributions of genetic and environmental factors play a main role in RA pathology. Previous works have demonstrated several genetic and environmental factors as risks of RA development and/or autoantibody productions. Among these, cigarette smoking and HLA-DRB1 are the well-established environmental and genetic risks, respectively. In this narrative review, we provide a recent update on genetic contributions to RA and the environmental risks of RA with a special focus on cigarette smoking and its impacts on RA pathology. We also describe gene–environmental interaction in RA pathogenesis with an emphasis on cigarette smoking and HLA-DRB1.

Diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for detecting bone erosion in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) for bone erosion in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients for a specific and efficient diagnostic recommendation.

METHOD

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, the sensitivity, specificity, area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of MRI and US for detecting bone erosion were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the performance of these values with different standard references when compared with types of machines and scanning positions.

RESULTS

Data from 26 articles were extracted for calculation. The comprehensive values of sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95% CI 0.63, 0.87)/0.89 (95% CI 0.80, 0.95) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.43, 0.77)/0.95 (95% CI 0.88, 0.98) for MRI and US, respectively. The 1.5-T Signa MRI system, General Electric© (sensitivity 0.66; specificity 0.90), and different models of LOGIQ US units and General Electric© (sensitivity 0.66; specificity 0.91) had better diagnostic capability to detect bone erosion, while the 2nd metacarpophalangeal joint (sensitivity 0.70; specificity 0.98) showed the best diagnostic performance among the hand joints with US.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither MRI nor US showed satisfactory diagnostic test accuracy in detecting bone erosion. However, the 1.5-T Signa MRI system, General Electric©, and different models of LOGIQ US units and General Electric© showed similarly good performance in detecting bone erosion in RA patients, while the 2nd metacarpophalangeal joint is the best recommended scanning position during US.

KEY POINTS

• In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for bone erosion in RA patients, neither MRI nor US showed perfect diagnostic test accuracy.• 1.5-T Signa system and the LOGIQ units both from General Electric© are the machine types of MRI and US with the greatest performance, respectively.• The 2nd MCP joint is the scanning position recommended during US test.• Different reference standards will greatly influence the judgment of the results.

Polymyalgia Rheumatica and Seronegative Elderly-Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis: Two Different Diseases with Many Similarities

Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and seronegative elderly-onset rheumatoid arthritis (SEORA) are two of the most frequent inflammatory rheumatologic diseases in elderly patients. At first presentation, there are many similarities between PMR and SEORA, that may lead to a real diagnostic conundrum. The most relevant similarities and differences between PMR and SEORA are discussed in this review. In addition to the acute involvement of the shoulder joints, important features characterising both diseases are morning stiffness longer than 45 minutes, raised erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and a good response to low doses of prednisone. Some findings (such as erosive arthritis or symmetrical involvement of metacarpophalangeal and/or proximal interphalangeal joints) can help to make the diagnosis of SEORA, whereas shoulder and hip ultrasonography and 18-FDG PET/CT seem to be less specific. However, in several patients only long-term follow-ups confirm the initial diagnosis. A definite diagnosis of PMR or SEORA has significant therapeutic implications, since patients with PMR should be treated with long-term glucocorticoids, and sometimes throughout life, which predisposes the patients to serious side effects. On the contrary, in patients with SEORA, short-term treatment with glucocorticoids should be considered when initiating or changing disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, followed by rapid tapering.