Background Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid... Show moreBackground Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. Methods The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013–003413–18). Findings Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28–78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38–161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. Interpretation Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. Show less
Ouwerkerk, L. van; Verschueren, P.; Boers, M.; Emery, P.; Jong, P.H.P. de; Landewé, R.B.M.; ... ; Bergstra, S.A. 2023
Objectives To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy.Methods Data from the BeSt... Show moreObjectives To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy.Methods Data from the BeSt, CareRA and COBRA trials were combined in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We compared GC use between bridgers and non-bridgers at 12, 18 and 24 months from baseline with mixed-effects regression analysis. Secondary outcomes were mean cumulative GC dose until 24 months after baseline with and without the bridging period, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) over time and number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) changes.Results 252/625 patients (40%) were randomised to GC bridging (bridgers). Excluding the period of bridging, later GC use was low in both groups and cumulative doses were similar. Mean DAS28 was similar between the groups, but bridgers improved more rapidly (p<0.001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.94)). GC use was higher in the bridgers at t=12 months (OR 3.27 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.08)) and the bridging schedules resulted in a difference in cumulative GC dose of 2406 mg (95% CI 1403 to 3408) over 24 months.Conclusion In randomised trials comparing GC bridging and no GC bridging, bridgers had a more rapid clinical improvement, fewer DMARD changes and similar late use of GC compared with non-bridgers. GC bridging per protocol resulted, as could be expected, in a higher cumulative GC dose over 2 years. Show less
Background: AVERT-2 (a phase IIIb, two-stage study) evaluated abatacept + methotrexate versus methotrexate alone, in methotrexate-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with... Show moreBackground: AVERT-2 (a phase IIIb, two-stage study) evaluated abatacept + methotrexate versus methotrexate alone, in methotrexate-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with early (<= 6 months), active RA. This subanalysis investigated whether individual patients who achieved the week 24 Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission primary endpoint could sustain remission to 1 year and then maintain it following changes in therapy. Methods: During the 56-week induction period (IP), patients were randomized to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg + methotrexate or abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Patients completing the IP who achieved SDAI remission (<= 3.3) at weeks 40 and 52 entered a 48-week de-escalation (DE) period. Patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate were re-randomized to continue weekly abatacept + methotrexate, or de-escalate and then withdraw abatacept (after 24 weeks), or receive abatacept monotherapy. Proportions of patients achieving sustained SDAI and Boolean remission, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28 [CRP]) < 2.6, were assessed. For patients achieving early sustained SDAI remission at weeks 24/40/52, flow between disease activity categories and individual trajectories was evaluated; flow was also evaluated for later remitters (weeks 40/52 but not week 24). Results: Among patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate (n/N = 451/752) at IP week 24, 22% achieved SDAI remission, 17% achieved Boolean remission, and 42% achieved DAS28 (CRP) < 2.6; of these, 56%, 58%, and 74%, respectively, sustained a response throughout IP weeks 40/52. Among patients with a sustained response at IP weeks 24/40/52, 82% (14/17) on weekly abatacept + methotrexate, 81% (13/16) on abatacept monotherapy, 63% (12/19) who de-escalated/withdrew abatacept, and 65% (11/17) on abatacept placebo + methotrexate were in SDAI remission at end of the DE period; rates were higher than for later remitters in all arms except abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Conclusions: A high proportion of individual patients achieving clinical endpoints at IP week 24 with abatacept + methotrexate sustained their responses through week 52. Of patients achieving early and sustained SDAI remission through 52 weeks, numerically more maintained remission during the DE period if weekly abatacept treatment continued. Show less
BackgroundAVERT-2 (a phase IIIb, two-stage study) evaluated abatacept + methotrexate versus methotrexate alone, in methotrexate-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with... Show moreBackgroundAVERT-2 (a phase IIIb, two-stage study) evaluated abatacept + methotrexate versus methotrexate alone, in methotrexate-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with early (≤ 6 months), active RA. This subanalysis investigated whether individual patients who achieved the week 24 Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission primary endpoint could sustain remission to 1 year and then maintain it following changes in therapy.MethodsDuring the 56-week induction period (IP), patients were randomized to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg + methotrexate or abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Patients completing the IP who achieved SDAI remission (≤ 3.3) at weeks 40 and 52 entered a 48-week de-escalation (DE) period. Patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate were re-randomized to continue weekly abatacept + methotrexate, or de-escalate and then withdraw abatacept (after 24 weeks), or receive abatacept monotherapy. Proportions of patients achieving sustained SDAI and Boolean remission, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28 [CRP]) < 2.6, were assessed. For patients achieving early sustained SDAI remission at weeks 24/40/52, flow between disease activity categories and individual trajectories was evaluated; flow was also evaluated for later remitters (weeks 40/52 but not week 24).ResultsAmong patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate (n/N = 451/752) at IP week 24, 22% achieved SDAI remission, 17% achieved Boolean remission, and 42% achieved DAS28 (CRP) < 2.6; of these, 56%, 58%, and 74%, respectively, sustained a response throughout IP weeks 40/52. Among patients with a sustained response at IP weeks 24/40/52, 82% (14/17) on weekly abatacept + methotrexate, 81% (13/16) on abatacept monotherapy, 63% (12/19) who de-escalated/withdrew abatacept, and 65% (11/17) on abatacept placebo + methotrexate were in SDAI remission at end of the DE period; rates were higher than for later remitters in all arms except abatacept placebo + methotrexate.ConclusionsA high proportion of individual patients achieving clinical endpoints at IP week 24 with abatacept + methotrexate sustained their responses through week 52. Of patients achieving early and sustained SDAI remission through 52 weeks, numerically more maintained remission during the DE period if weekly abatacept treatment continued. Show less
Introduction: One target of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is to achieve early sustained remission; over the long term, patients in sustained remission have less structural joint damage and... Show moreIntroduction: One target of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is to achieve early sustained remission; over the long term, patients in sustained remission have less structural joint damage and physical disability. We evaluated Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission with abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept placebo + methotrexate and impact of de-escalation (DE) in anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients with early RA. Methods: The phase IIIb, randomized, AVERT-2 two-stage study (NCT02504268) evaluated weekly abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Primary endpoint: SDAI remission (& LE; 3.3) at week 24. Pre-planned exploratory endpoint: maintenance of remission in patients with sustained remission (weeks 40 and 52) who, from week 56 for 48 weeks (DE period), (1) continued combination abatacept + methotrexate, (2) tapered abatacept to every other week (EOW) + methotrexate for 24 weeks with subsequent abatacept withdrawal (abatacept placebo + methotrexate), or (3) withdrew methotrexate (abatacept monotherapy). Results: Primary study endpoint was not met: 21.3% (48/225) of patients in the combination and 16.0% (24/150) in the abatacept placebo + methotrexate arm achieved SDAI remission at week 24 (p = 0.2359). There were numerical differences favoring combination therapy in clinical assessments, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and week 52 radiographic non-progression. After week 56, 147 patients in sustained remission with abatacept + methotrexate were randomized (combination, n = 50; DE/withdrawal, n = 50; abatacept monotherapy, n = 47) and entered DE. At DE week 48, SDAI remission (74%) and PRO improvements were mostly maintained with continued combination therapy; lower remission rates were observed with abatacept placebo + methotrexate (48.0%) and with abatacept monotherapy (57.4%). Before withdrawal, de-escalating to abatacept EOW + methotrexate preserved remission. Conclusions: The stringent primary endpoint was not met. However, in patients achieving sustained SDAI remission, numerically more maintained remission with continued abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept monotherapy or withdrawal. Show less
Ouwerkerk, L. van; Boers, M.; Emery, P.; Jong, P.H.P. de; Landewe, R.B.M.; Lems, W.; ... ; Bergstra, S.A. 2022
Objectives: To investigate whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can discontinue glucocorticoids (GC) after GC 'bridging' in the initial treatment step and to identify factors that may... Show moreObjectives: To investigate whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can discontinue glucocorticoids (GC) after GC 'bridging' in the initial treatment step and to identify factors that may affect this. Methods: Data from 7 clinical trial arms (with 1653 patients) that included a GC bridging schedule, previously identified in a systematic literature search, were combined in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Outcomes were GC use (yes/no) at predefined time points (1/3/6/12/18 months after bridging had ended), cumulative GC dose and continuous (>= 3 months) GC use after bridging had ended. Age, sex, ACPA status, initial GC dose, duration of bridging schedule, oral versus parenteral GC administration and initial co-treatment were univariably tested with each outcome. Results: The probability of using GC 1 month after bridging therapy had ended was 0.18, decreasing to 0.07 from 6 until 18 months after bridging had ended. The probability of continuous GC use after bridging had ended was 0.18 at 1 year and 0.30 at 2 years of follow-up. In oral GC bridging studies only, the probabilities of later and continuous GC use and the cumulative GC doses were higher compared to the combined analyses with also parenteral GC bridging studies included. A higher initial dose and a longer GC bridging schedule were associated with higher cumulative GC doses and more patients on GC at 18 months after bridging had ended. Conclusions Based on these RA clinical trial arms with an initial GC bridging schedule, the probability of subsequent ongoing GC use following bridging is low. Show less
Objective: To investigate correlations between biomarkers of bone remodelling and extracellular matrix turnover with baseline disease activity and treatment response in patients with early... Show moreObjective: To investigate correlations between biomarkers of bone remodelling and extracellular matrix turnover with baseline disease activity and treatment response in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment-2 (AVERT-2; NCT02504268) included disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients randomised to weekly subcutaneous abatacept+methotrexate (MTX) or abatacept placebo+MTX for 56 weeks. This post hoc exploratory subanalysis assessed the association between baseline disease activity and eight biomarkers (Spearman's correlation coefficient), and whether baseline biomarkers (continuous or categorical variables) could predict treatment response at weeks 24 and 52 (logistic regression). Results: Patient characteristics were similar between overall (n=752) and biomarker subgroup (n=535) populations and across treatments. At baseline, neoepitopes of matrix metalloproteinase-mediated degradation products of types III and IV collagen and of C reactive protein (CRP) showed the greatest correlations with disease activity; cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-I) showed weak correlation. Only CTX-I predicted treatment response; baseline CTX-I levels were significantly associated with achieving Simplified Disease Activity Index remission and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28 (CRP)) <2.6 (weeks 24 and 52), and American College of Rheumatology 70 response (week 52), in patients treated with abatacept+MTX but not abatacept placebo+MTX. CTX-I predicted significant differential response between arms for DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 (week 24). Treatment differences were greater for abatacept+MTX in patients with medium/high versus low baseline CTX-I. Conclusion: In MTX-naive, ACPA-positive patients with early RA, baseline CTX-I predicted treatment response to abatacept+MTX but not abatacept placebo+MTX. Show less
Background: Predicting progression to clinical arthritis in individuals at-risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis is a prerequisite to developing stratification groups for prevention strategies.... Show moreBackground: Predicting progression to clinical arthritis in individuals at-risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis is a prerequisite to developing stratification groups for prevention strategies. Selecting accurate predictive criteria is the critical step to define the population at-risk. While positivity for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) remains the main recruitment biomarker, positivity for other autoantibodies (AutoAbs) identified before the onset of symptoms, may provide additional predictive accuracy for stratification.Objective: To perform a multiple AutoAbs analysis for both the prediction and the time of progression to inflammatory arthritis (IA).Methods: 392 individuals were recruited based on a new musculoskeletal complaint and positivity for ACPA or rheumatoid factor (RF). ELISAs were performed for ACPA, RF, anti-nuclear Ab, anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) and anti-collagen AutoAbs. Logistic and COX regression were used for analysis.Results: Progression to IA was observed in 125/392 (32%) of cases, of which 78 progressed within 12 months. The AutoAbs ACPA, RF, anti-CarP were individually associated with progression (p<0.0001) and improved prediction when combined with demographic/clinical data (Accuracy >77%; area under the curve (AUC) >0.789), compared with prediction using only demographic/clinical data (72.9%, AUC=0.760). Multiple AutoAbs testing provided added value, with +6.4% accuracy for number of positive AutoAbs (AUC=0.852); +5.4% accuracy for AutoAbs levels (ACPA/anti-CarP, AUC=0.832); and +6.2% accuracy for risk-groups based on high/low levels (ACPA/RF/anti-CarP, AUC=0.837). Time to imminent progression was best predicted using ACPA/anti-CarP levels (AUC=0.779), while the number of positive AutoAbs was/status/risk were as good (AUC=0.778).Conclusion: We confirm added value of multiple AutoAbs testing for identifying progressors to clinical disease, allowing more specific stratification for intervention studies. Show less
Objective To investigate correlations between biomarkers of bone remodelling and extracellular matrix turnover with baseline disease activity and treatment response in patients with early... Show moreObjective To investigate correlations between biomarkers of bone remodelling and extracellular matrix turnover with baseline disease activity and treatment response in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment-2 (AVERT-2; NCT02504268) included disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients randomised to weekly subcutaneous abatacept+methotrexate (MTX) or abatacept placebo+MTX for 56 weeks. This post hoc exploratory subanalysis assessed the association between baseline disease activity and eight biomarkers (Spearman’s correlation coefficient), and whether baseline biomarkers (continuous or categorical variables) could predict treatment response at weeks 24 and 52 (logistic regression).Results Patient characteristics were similar between overall (n=752) and biomarker subgroup (n=535) populations and across treatments. At baseline, neoepitopes of matrix metalloproteinase-mediated degradation products of types III and IV collagen and of C reactive protein (CRP) showed the greatest correlations with disease activity; cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-I) showed weak correlation. Only CTX-I predicted treatment response; baseline CTX-I levels were significantly associated with achieving Simplified Disease Activity Index remission and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28 (CRP)) <2.6 (weeks 24 and 52), and American College of Rheumatology 70 response (week 52), in patients treated with abatacept+MTX but not abatacept placebo+MTX. CTX-I predicted significant differential response between arms for DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 (week 24). Treatment differences were greater for abatacept+MTX in patients with medium/high versus low baseline CTX-I.Conclusion In MTX-naive, ACPA-positive patients with early RA, baseline CTX-I predicted treatment response to abatacept+MTX but not abatacept placebo+MTX. Show less
Background: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the... Show moreBackground: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6R alpha antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. Methods: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. Results: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. Conclusions: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers. Show less
Background: Drug-free remission is a desirable goal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate whether clinical and magnetic... Show moreBackground: Drug-free remission is a desirable goal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate whether clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) variables in patients with early RA who achieved remission with methotrexate and/or abatacept at 12 months could predict disease flare following treatment withdrawal.Methods: In the AVERT study of abatacept in early RA, patients with low disease activity at month 12 entered a 12-month period with all treatment discontinued (withdrawal, WD). This post hoc analysis assessed predictors of disease flare at WD+6months (mo) and WD+12mo of patients with Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)-defined remission (DAS28[C-reactive protein (CRP)] <2.6) at withdrawal using univariate and multivariable regression models. Predictors investigated included the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain, Patient Global Assessment; MRI synovitis, erosion, bone edema, and combined (synovitis + bone edema) inflammation scores.Results: Remission was achieved by 172 patients; 100 (58%) and 113 (66%) patients had experienced a flare at WD+6mo and WD+12mo, respectively. In univariate analyses, higher HAQ-DI and MRI synovitis, erosion, bone edema, and combined inflammation scores at WD were identified as potential predictors of flare (P < 0.01). In multivariable analysis, high scores at WD for HAQ-DI and MRI erosion were confirmed as independent predictors of flare at WD+6mo and WD+12mo (P < 0.01).Conclusion: In patients with early RA achieving clinical remission, patient function (HAQ-DI), and MRI measures of bone damage (erosion) predicted disease flare 6 and 12 months after treatment withdrawal. These variables may help identify patients with early RA in clinical remission as candidates for successful treatment withdrawal. Show less
Background Despite growing interest, there is no guidance or consensus on how to conduct clinical trials and observational studies in populations at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods An... Show moreBackground Despite growing interest, there is no guidance or consensus on how to conduct clinical trials and observational studies in populations at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods An European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force formulated four research questions to be addressed by systematic literature review (SLR). The SLR results informed consensus statements. One overarching principle, 10 points to consider (PTC) and a research agenda were proposed. Task force members rated their level of agreement (1-10) for each PTC.Results Epidemiological and demographic characteristics should be measured in all clinical trials and studies in at-risk individuals. Different at-risk populations, identified according to clinical presentation, were defined: asymptomatic, musculoskeletal symptoms without arthritis and early clinical arthritis. Study end-points should include the development of subclinical inflammation on imaging, clinical arthritis, RA and subsequent achievement of arthritis remission. Risk factors should be assessed at baseline and re-evaluated where appropriate; they include genetic markers and autoantibody profiling and additionally clinical symptoms and subclinical inflammation on imaging in those with symptoms and/or clinical arthritis. Trials should address the effect of the intervention on risk factors, as well as progression to clinical arthritis or RA. In patients with early clinical arthritis, pharmacological intervention has the potential to prevent RA development. Participants' knowledge of their RA risk may inform their decision to participate; information should be provided using an individually tailored approach.Conclusion These consensus statements provide data-driven guidance for rheumatologists, health professionals and investigators conducting clinical trials and observational studies in individuals at risk of RA. Show less
Wouters, F.; Maurits, M.P.; Boheemen, L. van; Verstappen, M.; Mankia, K.; Matthijssen, X.M.E.; ... ; Helm-van Mil, A.H.M. van der 2021
Objectives The human leukocyte antigen-shared epitope (HLA-SE) alleles and smoking are the most prominent genetic and environmental risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, at which pre... Show moreObjectives The human leukocyte antigen-shared epitope (HLA-SE) alleles and smoking are the most prominent genetic and environmental risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, at which pre-arthritis stage (asymptomatic/symptomatic) they exert their effect is unknown. We aimed to determine whether HLA-SE and smoking are involved in the onset of autoantibody positivity, symptoms (clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA)) and/or progression to clinical arthritis. Methods We performed meta-analyses on results from the literature on associations of HLA-SE and smoking with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in the asymptomatic population. Next, we studied associations of HLA-SE and smoking with autoantibody positivity at CSA onset and with progression to clinical inflammatory arthritis (IA) during follow-up. Associations in ACPA-positive patients with CSA were validated in meta-analyses with other arthralgia cohorts. Analyses were repeated for rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-carbamylated protein antibodies (anti-CarP) and anti-acetylated protein antibodies (AAPA). Results Meta-analyses showed that HLA-SE is not associated with ACPA positivity in the asymptomatic population (OR 1.06 (95% CI:0.69 to 1.64)), whereas smoking was associated (OR 1.37 (95% CI: 1.15 to 1.63)). At CSA onset, both HLA-SE and smoking associated with ACPA positivity (OR 2.08 (95% CI: 1.24 to 3.49), OR 2.41 (95% CI: 1.31 to 4.43)). During follow-up, HLA-SE associated with IA development (HR 1.86 (95% CI: 1.23 to 2.82)), in contrast to smoking. This was confirmed in meta-analyses in ACPA-positive arthralgia (HR 1.52 (95% CI: 1.08 to 2.15)). HLA-SE and smoking were not associated with RF, anti-CarP or AAPA-positivity at CSA onset. Longitudinally, AAPA associated with IA development independent from ACPA and RF (HR 1.79 (95% CI: 1.02 to 3.16)), anti-CarP did not. Conclusions HLA-SE and smoking act at different stages: smoking confers risk for ACPA and symptom development, whereas HLA-SE mediates symptom and IA development. These data enhance the understanding of the timing of the key risk factors in the development of RA. Show less
Emery, P.; Horton, S.; Dumitru, R.B.; Naraghi, K.; Heijde, D. van der; Wakefield, R.J.; ... ; Buch, M.H. 2020
ObjectivesWe sought to confirm in very early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) a much greater superiority (30%) of first-line etanercept+methotrexate (ETN+MTX) over treat-to-target MTX (MTX-TT) than... Show moreObjectivesWe sought to confirm in very early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) a much greater superiority (30%) of first-line etanercept+methotrexate (ETN+MTX) over treat-to-target MTX (MTX-TT) than previously reported in ERA (14%); and explore whether ETN following initial MTX secures a comparable response to first-line ETN+MTX.MethodsPragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial of treatment-naive ERA (<= 12 months symptom), Disease Activity Score 28 joint (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) >= 3.2, rheumatoid factor (RF)+/-anticitrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) positive or ultrasound power Doppler (PD) if RF and ACPA negative. Subjects were randomised 1:1 to ETN+MTX; or MTX-TT, escalated to ETN if week 24 DAS28-ESR >= 2.6 and intramuscular corticosteroid at protocolised time points. Primary endpoint of week 48 DAS28ESR remission with clinical and imaging secondary endpoints.ResultsWe randomised 120 patients, 60 to each arm (71% female, 73% RF/84% ACPA positive, median (IQR) symptom duration 20.3 (13.1, 30.8) weeks; mean (SD) DAS28 5.1 (1.1)). Remission rates with ETN+MTX and MTX-TT, respectively, were 38% vs 33% at week 24; 52% vs 38% at week 48 (ORs 1.6, 95% CI 0.8 to 3.5, p=0.211). Greater, sustained DAS28-ESR remission observed with ETN+MTX versus MTX-TT (42% and 27%, respectively; p=0.035). PD was fully suppressed by week 48 in over 90% in each arm. Planned exploratory analysis revealed OR 2.84, 95% CI 0.8 to 9.6) of achieving remission after 24 weeks of ETN administered first line compared with administered post-MTX.ConclusionsCompared with remission rates typically reported with first-line tumour necrosis factor inhabitor+MTX versus MTX-TT, we did not demonstrate a larger effect in very ERA. Neither strategy conferred remission in the majority of patients although ultrasound confirmed local inflammation suppression. Poorer ETN response following failure of MTX-TT is also suggested. Show less
BackgroundPrevious studies of radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have used candidate-gene approaches, or evaluated single genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We undertook the... Show moreBackgroundPrevious studies of radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have used candidate-gene approaches, or evaluated single genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We undertook the first meta-analysis of GWAS of RA radiological damage to: (1) identify novel genetic loci for this trait; and (2) test previously validated variants.MethodsSeven GWAS (2,775 RA cases, of a range of ancestries) were combined in a meta-analysis. Radiological damage was assessed using modified Larsen scores, Sharp van Der Heijde scores, and erosive status. Single nucleotide polymophsim (SNP) associations with radiological damage were tested at a single time-point using regression models. Primary analyses included age and disease duration as covariates. Secondary analyses also included rheumatoid factor (RF). Meta-analyses were undertaken in trans-ethnic and European-only cases.ResultsIn the trans-ethnic primary meta-analysis, one SNP (rs112112734) in close proximity to HLA-DRB1, and strong linkage disequilibrium with the shared-epitope, attained genome-wide significance (P = 4.2x10(-8)). In the secondary analysis (adjusting for RF) the association was less significant (P = 1.7x10(-6)). In both trans-ethnic primary and secondary meta-analyses 14 regions contained SNPs with associations reaching P<5x10(-6); in the European primary and secondary analyses 13 and 10 regions contained SNPs reaching P<5x10(-6), respectively. Of the previously validated SNPs for radiological progression, only rs660895 (tagging HLA-DRB1*04:01) attained significance (P = 1.6x10(-5)) and had a consistent direction of effect across GWAS.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis confirms the known association between the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope and RA radiological damage. The lack of replication of previously validated non-HLA markers highlights a requirement for further research to deliver clinically-useful prognostic genetic markers. Show less
Al-Laith, M.; Jasenecova, M.; Abraham, S.; Bosworth, A.; Bruce, I.N.; Buckley, C.D.; ... ; Cope, A.P. 2019
Trial designWe present a study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial that seeks to test the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of... Show moreTrial designWe present a study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial that seeks to test the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a 52-week period of treatment with the first-in-class co-stimulatory blocker abatacept for preventing or delaying the onset of inflammatory arthritis.MethodsThe study aimed to recruit 206 male or female subjects from the secondary care hospital setting across the UK and the Netherlands. Participants who were at least 18 years old, who reported inflammatory sounding joint pain (clinically suspicious arthralgia) and who were found to be positive for serum autoantibodies associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were eligible for enrolment. All study subjects were randomly assigned to receive weekly injections of investigational medicinal product, either abatacept or placebo treatment over the course of a 52-week period. Participants were followed up for a further 52weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to development of at least three swollen joints or to the fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for RA using swollen but not tender joints, whichever endpoint was met first. In either case, swollen joints were confirmed by ultrasonography. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes were all blinded to group assignment. Clinical assessors and ultrasonographers were also blinded to each other's assessments for the duration of the study.ConclusionsThere is limited experience of the design and implementation of trials for the prevention of inflammatory joint diseases. We discuss the rationale behind choice and duration of treatment and the challenges associated with defining the at risk state and offer pragmatic solutions in the protocol to enrolling subjects at risk of RA.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN46017566. Registered on 4 July 2014. Show less
