Predicting the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an early stage through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can initiate timely treatment and improve long-term patient outcomes. Although... Show morePredicting the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an early stage through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can initiate timely treatment and improve long-term patient outcomes. Although manual prediction is time-consuming and requires expert knowledge, automatic RA prediction has not been fully investigated. While standard models fail to achieve acceptable performance, we present a consistency-based deep learning framework to classify and predict RA automatically and precisely, including an output-standardized model, customized self-supervised pretraining and a loss function that is based on label consistency between original and augmented inputs. For training and evaluation, we used a database, containing 5945 MRI scans of carpal, metacarpophalangeal (MCP), and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints, from 2151 subjects obtained over a period of ten years. Four (three classification- and one prediction-) tasks were defined to distinguish two patient groups (with recent-onset arthritis and clinically suspect arthralgia) from healthy controls and RA from other arthritis patients within the recent-onset arthritis group, and predict RA development in a period of two years within the clinically suspect arthralgia group. The proposed method was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) on a separate test set, achieving mean AUROCs of 83.6%, 83.3%, and 69.7% in the three classification tasks, and 67.8% in the prediction task. This proves the existence of early signs of RA in MRI and the potential of a consistency-based deep learning model to detect these early signs and predict RA Show less
Hassanzadeh, T.; Shamonin, D.P.; Li, Y.L.; Krijbolder, D.I.; Reijnierse, M.; Helm-van Mil, A.H.M.V. van der; Stoel, B.C. 2024
Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that mainly affects joints in the wrist and hands. It typically results in inflamed and painful joints. MRI is one of the most common imaging...Show moreRheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that mainly affects joints in the wrist and hands. It typically results in inflamed and painful joints. MRI is one of the most common imaging modalities to detect and monitor possible inflamed RA-related areas, enabling rheumatologists to treat patients more timely and efficiently. Despite the importance of finding and tracking inflamed areas associated with RA in MRI, there is no previously published work on finding pixel-by-pixel changes related to RA between baseline and follow-up MRIs. Therefore, this paper proposes a hypothesis-free deep learning-based model to discover changes in wrist MRIs on a pixel level to detect changes in inflamed areas related to RA without using prior anatomical information. To do this, a combination of a U-Net-based network and image thresholding was utilised to find pixel-level non-trivial changes between baseline and follow-up MRI images. A wrist MRI dataset including 99 individual pairs of MRI images (each pair constructed of baseline and follow-up images) was used to evaluate the proposed model. Data were collected from patients with clinically suspected arthralgia (CSA), defined as patients at risk of developing RA according to their rheumatologist and already had subclinical inflammation on MRI but could not be diagnosed with RA (yet) since they had not developed clinically detectable arthritis. The obtained results were evaluated using an observer study. The evaluation showed that our proposed model is a promising first step toward developing an automatic model to find RA-related inflammatory changes. Show less
Background and Aims: The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) proposed measures to address severe side effects linked to Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in immune-mediated inflammatory... Show moreBackground and Aims: The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) proposed measures to address severe side effects linked to Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Use of these medications in individuals aged 65 and older, those at high cardiovascular risk, active or former long-term smokers, and those with increased cancer risk should be considered only if no alternatives exist. Caution is advised when administering JAKi to patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. We aim to implement recommendations from regulatory guidelines based on areas of uncertainty identified. Methods: A two-round modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology study was conducted. A panel of 21 gastroenterologists, dermatologists and rheumatologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of administering a JAKi for each proposed clinical scenario. Scores for appropriateness were categorized as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Two rounds were performed, each with online surveys and a virtual meeting to enable discussion and rating of each best practice. Results: Round 1 involved participants rating JAKi appropriateness and suggesting descriptors to reduce uncertainty. Survey results were discussed in a virtual meeting, identifying areas of disagreement. In round 2, participants rated their agreement with descriptors from round 1, and the level of uncertainty and disagreement reduced. Age flexibility is recommended in the absence of other risk factors. Active counseling on modifiable risks (e.g., overweight, mild hyperlipidemia and hypertension) and smoking cessation is advised. Uncertainty persists regarding cancer risk due to various factors. Conclusions: We outlined regulatory guidance without a personalized evaluation of the patient's risk profile might lead to uncertainty and become an arid technicality. Therefore, we identified gaps and implemented PRAC recommendations to help health professionals in clinical practice. Show less
Teuwen, M.M.H.; Vlieland, T.P.M.V.; Weely, S.F.E. van; Schoones, J.W.; Osthoff, A.K.R.; Juhl, C.B.; ... ; Ende, C.H.M. van den 2023
To describe the quality of reporting and the nature of reported harms in clinical studies on the effectiveness of supervised exercises in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial... Show moreTo describe the quality of reporting and the nature of reported harms in clinical studies on the effectiveness of supervised exercises in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). We performed a systematic review, searching eight databases up to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating supervised exercises in adults with RA or axSpA were considered eligible. Data on harms were extracted according to the CONSORT Harms 2022 Checklist. Among others, it was recorded if harms were prespecified or non-prespecified. Moreover, the nature of reported harms was listed. Forty RCTs were included for RA and 25 for axSpA, of which 29 (73%) and 13 (52%) reported information on harms. In 13 (33%) RCTs in RA and four (16%) in axSpA, the collection of harms outcomes was described in the methods section. Prespecified outcomes were reported by eight (RA) and two (axSpA) RCTs. Non-specified harms outcomes were reported by six (RA) and four (axSpA) RCTs. Prespecified harms outcomes included measures of pain, disease activity, inflammation, and structural joint changes. The nature of non-prespecified harms outcomes varied largely, with pain being most common. A considerable proportion of trials on supervised exercise in RA or axSpA does not or inadequately report harms outcomes. Pain was the most commonly reported prespecified or non-specified harm. For a considerate interpretation of the balance between benefits and harms of supervised exercise in RA or axSpA, use of the CONSORT Harms 2022 Checklist for the design, conduct and reporting of trials is advocated. Show less
The objective of the study is to describe the nature of functional limitations in activities and participation in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) or axial SpondyloArthritis (axSpA) with... Show moreThe objective of the study is to describe the nature of functional limitations in activities and participation in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) or axial SpondyloArthritis (axSpA) with severe functional disability. Baseline data from people with RA (n = 206) or axSpA (n = 155) and severe functional disability participating in an exercise trial were used. Their three most limited activities were derived from the Patient Specific Complaint (PSC) instrument and linked to the International Classification of Functioning and Health (ICF). The frequencies of ICF categories were calculated and compared with Activities and Participation items of the ICF Core Sets for RA (32 second-level categories) and Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) (24 second-level categories). In total 618 and 465 PSC activities were linked to 909 (72 unique in total; 25 unique second-level) and 759 (57 unique in total; 23 unique second-level) ICF categories in RA and axSpA. Taking into account all three prioritized activities, the five most frequent limited activities concerned the ICF chapter "Mobility", and included "Walking" (RA and axSpA 2 categories), "Changing basic body position" (RA and axSpA 1 category), "Stair climbing"(RA) and "Grasping" (RA),"Lifting" (axSpA) and "Maintaining a standing position" (axSpA). In RA, 21/32 (66%) and in axSpA 14/24 (58%) unique second-level categories identified in the prioritized activities are present in the Comprehensive Core Sets. Most limitations of people with RA or axSpA and severe functional disability were seen in the ICF chapter "Mobility". Most of the identified ICF categories were covered by the corresponding items of the ICF RA and AS Core Sets. Show less
BackgroundAlthough reduced work ability is a substantial problem among people with inflammatory arthritis (IA), work ability is an underexposed area in clinical practice. Evidence on vocational... Show moreBackgroundAlthough reduced work ability is a substantial problem among people with inflammatory arthritis (IA), work ability is an underexposed area in clinical practice. Evidence on vocational interventions in IA is limited, but favourable results of delivery by a physiotherapist (PT) warrant the need for further research. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of a multimodal, PT-led, vocational intervention in (self-)employed people with IA compared to usual care.MethodsThis randomized controlled trial will include 140 people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who are (self-)employed and have reduced work ability (Work Ability Index – Single Item Scale (WAS) ≤ 7/10) and/or RA/axSpA related sick leave (≤ 6 months). Participants will be randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control condition (usual care). The intervention, delivered by primary care PTs, will be personalized to each patient, consisting of 10 to 21 sessions over 12 months. The intervention will be multimodal, comprising of 1) exercise therapy and a physical activity plan, 2) education/self-management support, 3) work-roadmap to guide participants in finding relevant other care, with optionally 4) online self-management course and 5) workplace examination. Assessments will be performed at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measure of effectiveness is work ability, as measured with the WAS at 12 months. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported healthcare use, sick leave and productivity while at work will be used to estimate the trial based cost-utility from a societal perspective. A process evaluation, including assessments of adherence and treatment fidelity, will be undertaken using the registrations of the PTs and semi-structured interviews at 12 months follow-up in a random sample of the intervention group.DiscussionThe results of this study will provide insights in the (cost-)effectiveness of a multimodal, PT-led, vocational intervention in people with IA and a reduced work ability. Show less
Purpose: Although the use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures is widely advocated, little is known on their use in patients with inflammatory arthritis. We... Show morePurpose: Although the use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures is widely advocated, little is known on their use in patients with inflammatory arthritis. We systematically describe the use and outcomes of PROMIS measures in clinical studies involving people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Through a systematic search of nine electronic databases, clinical studies including patients with RA or axSpA and reporting the use of PROMIS measure were selected. Study characteristics, details of PROMIS measures and their outcomes, if available, were extracted. Results: In total, 29 studies described in 40 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 25 studies included RA patients, three studies included axSpA patients and one study included both RA and axSpA patients. The use of two general PROMIS measures (PROMIS Global Health, PROMIS-29) and 13 different domain-specific PROMIS measures was reported, of which the PROMIS Pain Interference (n = 17), Physical Function (n = 14), Fatigue (n = 13), and Depression (n = 12) measures were most frequently used. Twenty-one studies reported their results in terms of T-scores. Most T-scores were worse than the general population mean, indicating impairments of health status. Eight studies did not report actual data but rather measurement properties of the PROMIS measures. Conclusion: There was considerable variety regarding the different PROMIS measures used, with the PROMIS Pain interference, Physical function, Fatigue, and Depression measures being the most frequently used. In order to facilitate the comparisons across studies, more standardization of the selection of PROMIS measures is needed. 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
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of the infliximab biosimilar (sim-INF) CT-P13 with originator infliximab (orig-INF) over 24 months of follow-up in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid... Show moreObjectives: To compare the effectiveness of the infliximab biosimilar (sim-INF) CT-P13 with originator infliximab (orig-INF) over 24 months of follow-up in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: Biological-naïve patients from the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register (Reuma.pt), with a clinical diagnosis of RA or axSpA, who were starting either the sim-INF CT-P13 or the orig-INF after 2014 (date of market entry of CT-P13 in Portugal), were included. Patients on biosimilar and originator were compared regarding different response outcomes at 3 and 6 months, adjusting for age, sex and baseline C Reactive Protein (CRP). The main outcome was the change in DAS28-Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) for RA and the ASDAS-CRP for axSpA. Additionally, the effect of sim-INF vs orig-INF on different response outcomes over 24 months of follow-up was tested with longitudinal generalized estimating equations (GEE) models. Results: In total, 140 patients were included, 66 (47%) of which with RA. The distribution of patients starting the sim-INF and the orig-INF was the same between the two diseases (approximately 60% and 40%, respectively). From the 66 patients with RA, 82% were females, mean age was 56 (SD 11) years and mean DAS28-ESR 4.9 (1.3) at baseline. As for the patients with axSpA, 53% were males, mean age was 46 (13.0) years and mean ASDAS-CRP 3.7 (0.9) at baseline. There were no differences in efficacy between RA patients treated with the sim-INF and the orig-INF, either at 3 months (∆DAS28-ESR: -0.6 (95% CI -1.3; 0.1) vs -1.2 (-2.0; -0.4)), or at 6 months (∆DAS28-ESR: -0.7 (-1.5; 0.0) vs -1.5 (-2.4; -0.7)). This was also true for patients with axSpA (∆ASDAS at 3 months: -1.6 (-2.0; -1.1) vs -1.4 (-1.8; -0.9) and at 6 months: -1.5 (-2.0; -1.1) vs -1.1 (-1.5; -0.7)). Results were similar with the longitudinal models over 24 months. Conclusion: There are no differences in effectiveness between the sim-INF CT-P13 and the orig-INF in the treatment of biological-naïve patients with active RA and axSpA in clinical practice. Show less
Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are inflammatory diseases that often affect the wrist and, when affected, can lead to impaired wrist function and progressive... Show moreBackground: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are inflammatory diseases that often affect the wrist and, when affected, can lead to impaired wrist function and progressive joint destruction if inadequately treated. Standard care consists primarily of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), often supported by systemic corticosteroids or intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACSI). IACSI, despite their use worldwide, show poor response in a substantial group of patients. Arthroscopic synovectomy of the wrist is the surgical removal of synovitis with the goal to relieve pain and improve wrist function. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate wrist function following arthroscopic synovectomy compared to IACSI in therapy-resistant patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. Secondary objectives include radiologic progress, disease activity, health-related quality of life, work participation and cost-effectiveness during a 1-year follow-up. Methods: This protocol describes a prospective, randomized controlled trial. RA and PsA patients are eligible with prominent wrist synovitis objectified by a rheumatologist, not responding to at least 3 months of conventional DMARDs and naive to biological DMARDs. For 90% power, an expected loss to follow-up of 5%, an expected difference in mean Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE, range 0-100) of 11 and alpha = 0.05, a total sample size of 80 patients will be sufficient to detect an effect size. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio for arthroscopic synovectomy with deposition of corticosteroids or for IACSI. Removed synovial tissue will be stored for an ancillary study on disease profiling. The primary outcome is wrist function, measured with the PRWE score after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include wrist mobility and grip strength, pain scores, DAS28, EQ-5D-5L, disease progression on ultrasound and radiographs, complications and secondary treatment. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed, based on healthcare costs (iMCQ questionnaire) and productivity loss (iPCQ questionnaire). Follow-up will be scheduled at 3, 6 and 12 months. Patient burden is minimized by combining study visits with regular follow-ups. Discussion: Persistent wrist arthritis continues to be a problem for patients with rheumatic joint disease leading to disability. This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect, safety and feasibility of arthroscopic synovectomy of the wrist in these patients compared to IACSI.Trial registration: Dutch trial registry (CCMO), NL74744.100.20. Registered on 30 November 2020.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04755127. Registered after the start of inclusion on 15 February 2021. Show less
BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are inflammatory diseases that often affect the wrist and, when affected, can lead to impaired wrist function and progressive joint... Show moreBackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are inflammatory diseases that often affect the wrist and, when affected, can lead to impaired wrist function and progressive joint destruction if inadequately treated. Standard care consists primarily of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), often supported by systemic corticosteroids or intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACSI). IACSI, despite their use worldwide, show poor response in a substantial group of patients. Arthroscopic synovectomy of the wrist is the surgical removal of synovitis with the goal to relieve pain and improve wrist function. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate wrist function following arthroscopic synovectomy compared to IACSI in therapy-resistant patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. Secondary objectives include radiologic progress, disease activity, health-related quality of life, work participation and cost-effectiveness during a 1-year follow-up.MethodsThis protocol describes a prospective, randomized controlled trial. RA and PsA patients are eligible with prominent wrist synovitis objectified by a rheumatologist, not responding to at least 3 months of conventional DMARDs and naïve to biological DMARDs. For 90% power, an expected loss to follow-up of 5%, an expected difference in mean Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE, range 0–100) of 11 and α = 0.05, a total sample size of 80 patients will be sufficient to detect an effect size. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio for arthroscopic synovectomy with deposition of corticosteroids or for IACSI. Removed synovial tissue will be stored for an ancillary study on disease profiling. The primary outcome is wrist function, measured with the PRWE score after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include wrist mobility and grip strength, pain scores, DAS28, EQ-5D-5L, disease progression on ultrasound and radiographs, complications and secondary treatment. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed, based on healthcare costs (iMCQ questionnaire) and productivity loss (iPCQ questionnaire). Follow-up will be scheduled at 3, 6 and 12 months. Patient burden is minimized by combining study visits with regular follow-ups.DiscussionPersistent wrist arthritis continues to be a problem for patients with rheumatic joint disease leading to disability. This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect, safety and feasibility of arthroscopic synovectomy of the wrist in these patients compared to IACSI. Show less
Physical activity (PA) is a key strategy for improving symptoms in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The aim of this study was to investigate and rank the importance of... Show morePhysical activity (PA) is a key strategy for improving symptoms in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The aim of this study was to investigate and rank the importance of known barriers and facilitators for engaging in PA, from the perspective of people living with RMD. Five hundred thirty-three people with RMD responded to a survey (nine questions) disseminated by the People with Arthritis and Rheumatism (PARE) network of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). The survey required participants to rank - based on their perceived importance - known PA barriers and facilitators from the literature, and specifically RMD symptoms as well as healthcare and community factors that may affect PA participation. Of the participants, 58% reported rheumatoid arthritis as their primary diagnosis, 89% were female, and 59% were between 51 and 70 years of age. Overall, participants reported fatigue (61.4%), pain (53.6%) and painful/swollen joints (50.6%) as the highest ranked barriers for engaging in PA. Conversely, less fatigue (66.8%) and pain (63.6%), and being able to do daily activities more easy (56.3%) were identified as the most important facilitators to PA. Three literature identified PA barriers, i.e., general health (78.8%), fitness (75.3%) and mental health (68.1%), were also ranked as being the most important for PA engagement. Symptoms of RMDs, such as pain and fatigue, seem to be considered the predominant barriers to PA by people with RMD; the same barriers are also the ones that they want to improve through increasing PA, suggesting a bi-directional relationship between these factors. 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
During the last decade, the outlook for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved greatly, especially for patients with autoantibody-positive RA. To further improve long-term disease... Show moreDuring the last decade, the outlook for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved greatly, especially for patients with autoantibody-positive RA. To further improve long-term disease outcomes, the field has turned to investigating the efficacy of treatment initiated in the pre-arthritic phase of RA, based on the adage "the sooner the better." In this review, the concept of prevention is evaluated and different risk stages are being examined for their pre-test risks of RA development. These risks affect the post-test risk of biomarkers used at these stages and, consequently, the accuracy with which the risk of RA can be estimated. Furthermore, through their effect on accurate risk stratification, these pre-test risks ultimately also associate with the likelihood of false-negative trial results (the so-called "clinicostatistical tragedy"). Outcome measures to assess preventive effects are evaluated and relate to either the occur-rence of disease itself or to the severity of risk factors for RA development. Results of recently completed prevention studies are discussed in the light of these theoretical considerations. The results vary, but clear prevention of RA has not been demonstrated. While some treatments (e.g. methotrexate) persistently reduced symptom severity, physical disability, and the severity of imaging joint inflammation, other treatments were not reported to produce long-lasting effects (hydroxychloroquine, rituximab, atorvas-tatin). The review concludes with future perspectives regarding the design of new prevention studies and considerations and requirements before findings can be implemented in daily practice in individuals at risk of RA attending rheumatology practices.(c) 2023 L'Auteur(s). Publie par Elsevier Masson SAS au nom de Societe franc,aise de rhumatologie. Cet article est publie en Open Access sous licence CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Huizinga, T.; Choy, E.; Praestgaard, A.; Hoogstraten, H. van; LaFontaine, P.R.; Guyot, P.; ... ; Fleischmann, R. 2023
Introduction: The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid... Show moreIntroduction: The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs. Methods:Patient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, DAS28-CRP < 2.6, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) < 3.3, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < 2.8 at 12 weeks. Results: The analysis included 365 patients from TARGET and aggregated data of 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND. Matching for potential treatment effect baseline modifiers (i.e., age, oral glucocorticoid use, tender joint count of 68 counts, swollen joint count of 66 counts, serum CRP level, and patient global assessment of disease activity) resulted in a reduction of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 166. Following MAIC and STC analysis, the odds of achieving all aforementioned clinical outcomes versus placebo at week 12 were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib. Conclusion: In the MAIC and STC analyses from TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials, the efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib were comparable. Show less
Huizinga, T.; Choy, E.; Praestgaard, A.; Hoogstraten, H. van; LaFontaine, P.R.; Guyot, P.; ... ; Fleischmann, R. 2023
IntroductionThe efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid... Show moreIntroductionThe efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs.MethodsPatient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, DAS28-CRP < 2.6, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) < 3.3, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < 2.8 at 12 weeks.ResultsThe analysis included 365 patients from TARGET and aggregated data of 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND. Matching for potential treatment effect baseline modifiers (i.e., age, oral glucocorticoid use, tender joint count of 68 counts, swollen joint count of 66 counts, serum CRP level, and patient global assessment of disease activity) resulted in a reduction of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 166. Following MAIC and STC analysis, the odds of achieving all aforementioned clinical outcomes versus placebo at week 12 were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib.ConclusionIn the MAIC and STC analyses from TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials, the efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib were comparable. Show less
Wissen, M.A.T. van; Berger, M.A.M.; Schoones, J.W.; Gademan, M.G.J.; Ende, C.H.M. van den; Vlieland, T.P.M.V.; Weely, S.F.E. van 2022
To assess the reporting quality of interventions aiming at promoting physical activity (PA) using a wearable activity tracker (WAT) in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) or hip/knee... Show moreTo assess the reporting quality of interventions aiming at promoting physical activity (PA) using a wearable activity tracker (WAT) in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) or hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA). A systematic search was performed in eight databases (including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) for studies published between 2000 and 2022. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics and the reporting of the PA intervention using a WAT using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) (12 items) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) E-Health checklist (16 items). The reporting quality of each study was expressed as a percentage of reported items of the total CERT and CONSORT E-Health (50% or less = poor; 51-79% = moderate; and 80-100% = good reporting quality). Sixteen studies were included; three involved patients with IA and 13 with OA. Reporting quality was poor in 6/16 studies and moderate in 10/16 studies, according to the CERT and poor in 8/16 and moderate in 8/16 studies following the CONSORT E-Health checklist. Poorly reported checklist items included: the description of decision rule(s) for determining progression and the starting level, the number of adverse events and how adherence or fidelity was assessed. In clinical trials on PA interventions using a WAT in patients with IA or OA, the reporting quality of delivery process is moderate to poor. The poor reporting quality of the progression and tailoring of the PA programs makes replication difficult. Improvements in reporting quality are necessary. Show less
ackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease for which prediction of long-term prognosis from disease’s outset is not clinically feasible. The importance of immunoglobulin G ... Show moreackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease for which prediction of long-term prognosis from disease’s outset is not clinically feasible. The importance of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and its Fc N-glycosylation in inflammation is well-known and studies described its relevance for several autoimmune diseases, including RA. Herein we assessed the association between IgG N-glycoforms and disease prognosis at 2 years in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort.MethodsSera from 118 patients with early inflammatory arthritis naïve to treatment sampled at baseline were used to obtain IgG Fc glycopeptides, which were then analyzed in a subclass-specific manner by liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Patients were prospectively followed and a favorable prognosis at 2 years was assessed by a combined index as remission or low disease activity (DAS28 < 3.2) and normal functionality (HAQ ≤ 0.25) while on treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs and never used biologic DMARDs.ResultsWe observed a significant association between high levels of IgG2/3 Fc galactosylation (effect 0.627 and adjusted p value 0.036 for the fully galactosylated glycoform H5N4F1; effect −0.551 and adjusted p value 0.04963 for the agalactosylated H3N4F1) and favorable outcome after 2 years of treatment. The inclusion of IgG glycoprofiling in a multivariate analysis to predict the outcome (with HAQ, DAS28, RF, and ACPA included in the model) did not improve the prognostic performance of the model.ConclusionPending confirmation of these findings in larger cohorts, IgG glycosylation levels could be used as a prognostic marker in early arthritis, to overcome the limitations of the current prognostic tools. Show less
