Related Articles

Background

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) frequently needs to be changed because of insufficient effectiveness.

Aim

To compare the clinical outcomes of two potential strategies for patients experiencing DMARD discontinuations related to ineffectiveness: switching to another DMARD or step‐up combination therapy of the present DMARD with a new one.

Methods

In a large observational database of 4585 DMARD courses in 1214 patients with RA, all patients who had experienced a change in treatment regimen were identified, and retention, effectiveness and safety of these subsequent treatment courses between the two strategies (switching vs step‐up combination). All analyses were stratified according to the type of the new DMARD into methotrexate (MTX), sulphasalazine (SSZ) or leflunomide (LEF); all other DMARDs were excluded.

Results

Kaplan–Meier analysis for MTX courses showed no significant difference in overall retention rates between the strategies of adding MTX and switching to MTX (p = 0.49 by log rank test). Likewise, switching or adding did not result in significantly different retention rates for SSZ and LEF (p = 0.61 and 0.74, respectively). This similarity between strategies remained after adjusting for several confounding variables. The frequencies of treatment terminations related to ineffectiveness or toxicity were likewise similar between the two strategies for the MTX, SSZ and LEF groups. This was also confirmed by the similarity of erythrocyte sedimentation rates that were reached at the end of the two therapeutic strategies for all three drugs, in adjusted analysis.

Conclusion

Given all limitations of observational studies, the present data indicate that in situations of ineffective DMARD treatments, step‐up combination therapy using traditional DMARDs, such as MTX, SSZ or LEF, bears no clear clinical advantage over switching to the new DMARD. Our results do not implicate any predication about step‐up design including biologicals, where the benefit of combination therapy has been suggested convincingly.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by inflammation and an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study investigates possible associations between CVD and the use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA. Using a case control design, 613 RA patients (5,649 patient-years) were studied, 72 with CVD and 541 without CVD. Data on RA, CVD and drug treatment were evaluated from time of RA diagnosis up to the first cardiovascular event or the end of the follow-up period. The dataset was categorized according to DMARD use: sulfasalazine (SSZ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or methotrexate (MTX). Odds ratios (ORs) for CVD, corrected for age, gender, smoking and RA duration, were calculated per DMARD group. Patients who never used SSZ, HCQ or MTX were used as a reference group. MTX treatment was associated with a significant CVD risk reduction, with ORs (95% CI): 'MTX only', 0.16 (0.04 to 0.66); 'MTX and SSZ ever', 0.20 (0.08 to 0.51); and 'MTX, SSZ and HCQ ever', 0.20 (0.08 to 0.54). The risk reductions remained significant after additional correction for the presence of rheumatoid factor and erosions. After correction for hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia, 'MTX or SSZ ever' and 'MTX, SSZ and HCQ ever' showed significant CVD risk reduction. Rheumatoid factor positivity and erosions both increased CVD risk, with ORs of 2.04 (1.02 to 4.07) and 2.36 (0.92 to 6.08), respectively. MTX and, to a lesser extent, SSZ were associated with significantly lower CVD risk compared to RA patients who never used SSZ, HCQ or MTX. We hypothesize that DMARD use, in particular MTX use, results in powerful suppression of inflammation, thereby reducing the development of atherosclerosis and subsequently clinically overt CVD.

Periodic assessment of gene expression for diagnosis and monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may provide a readily available and useful method to detect subclinical disease progression and follow responses to therapy with disease modifying anti-rheumatic agents (DMARDs) or anti-TNF-α therapy. We used quantitative real-time PCR to compare peripheral blood gene expression profiles in active (“unstable”) RA patients on DMARDs, stable RA patients on DMARDs, and stable RA patients treated with a combination of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug (DMARD) and an anti-TNF-α agent (infliximab or etanercept) to healthy human controls. The expression of 48 inflammatory genes were compared between healthy controls (N = 122), unstable DMARD patients (N = 18), stable DMARD patients (N = 26), and stable patients on combination therapy (N = 20). Expression of 13 genes was very low or undetectable in all study groups. Compared to healthy controls, patients with unstable RA on DMARDs exhibited increased expression of 25 genes, stable DMARD patients exhibited increased expression of 14 genes and decreased expression of five genes, and combined therapy patients exhibited increased expression of six genes and decreased expression of 10 genes. These findings demonstrate that active RA is associated with increased expression of circulating inflammatory markers whereas increases in inflammatory gene expression are diminished in patients with stable disease on either DMARD or anti-TNF-α therapy. Furthermore, combination DMARD and anti-TNF-α therapy is associated with greater reductions in circulating inflammatory gene expression compared to DMARD therapy alone. These results suggest that assessment of peripheral blood gene expression may prove useful to monitor disease progression and response to therapy.

Background

Modulation of Jak‐STAT signalling may provide an effective therapeutic strategy in inflammatory arthritis (IA).

Objective

To examine the effect of successful disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment on the expression of Jak‐STAT in a cohort of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

Synovial tissue biopsy specimens from 16 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, taken before and after initiation of DMARD treatment, were examined for the presence of janus kinase (Jak)3, signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT)1, STAT4 and STAT6 expression using immunohistochemistry.

Results

Successful treatment with DMARDs results in reduction in STAT1 expression in the lining, and STAT1 and STAT6 in the sublining of rheumatoid arthritis synovial tissue. Although the overall expression of STAT4 and Jak3 was not significantly altered by DMARD treatment, there was a significant reduction in the expression of the STAT4 and Jak3 bright cells, thought to be an activated dendritic cell subpopulation.

Conclusion

Results show that Jak3, STAT1, STAT4 expression and STAT6 sublining expression decrease in response to successful treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with standard DMARDs. Therefore, altering the expression of these pathways may represent an alternative treatment option, either through promoting up‐regulation of inhibitory pathways, or suppressing inflammatory paths.

Background

Acquired drug resistance or gradual drug failure has been described with most disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and is also starting to be recognised with anti‐tumour necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) agents.

Objective

To study acquired drug resistance to anti‐TNF agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Swiss health authorities requested continuous monitoring of patients receiving biological agents. Intensification of co‐therapy with traditional DMARDs, gradual dose escalation, and drug discontinuation rates in all patients receiving infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab, adjusting for potential confounders, were analysed. Intensification of DMARD co‐therapy and time to discontinuation of the three anti‐TNF agents were analysed using a proportional hazards models. Dose escalation and evolution of RA disease activity (DAS28) were analysed using a longitudinal regression model.

Results

1198 patients contributing 1450 patient‐years of anti‐TNF treatment met the inclusion criteria. The rate of intensification of traditional DMARD co‐therapy over time was significantly higher with infliximab (hazards ratio = 1.73 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.51)) than with the two other agents. Infliximab also showed significant dose escalation over time, with an average dose increase of +12% (99% CI 8% to 16%) after 1 year, and +18% (99% CI 11% to 25%) after 2 years. No significant differences in discontinuation rates were seen between the three anti‐TNF agents (ANOVA, p = 0.67). Evolution of disease activity over time indicated a lower therapeutic response to infliximab (DAS28, p<0.001) compared with etanercept, after 6 months' treatment.

Conclusions

In this population, infliximab was associated with a higher risk of requiring intensification of DMARD co‐therapy than the other anti‐TNF agents and a significant dose escalation over time. Analysis of RA disease activity indicated a reduced therapeutic response to infliximab after the first 6 months of treatment, suggestive of acquired drug resistance.

Some research evidence supports early aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using combination therapy with two or more disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) plus steroids, or even DMARDs plus an anti-TNF. By contrast, conservatively delayed DMARD monotherapy, given after non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have failed, has been criticised. However, recent long-term studies highlight the complexities in evaluating whether to abandon pyramidal treatment in favour of early DMARDs. Although patients given early DMARD therapy show short-term benefits, longer-term results show no prolonged clinical advantages from early DMARDs. By 5 years patients receiving early DMARDs had similar disease activity and comparable health assessment questionnaire scores to patients who received DMARDs later in their disease course. X-ray progression was persistent and virtually identical in both groups. These negative findings do not invalidate the case for early DMARD therapy, as it is gives sustained reductions in disease activity in the early years of treatment without excessive risks from adverse effects. However, early DMARDs alone do not adequately control RA in the longer term. This may require starting with very aggressive therapy or treating patients more aggressively after early DMARD therapy has been initiated.

The objective of this work is to compare the adherence to therapy of patients receiving etanercept and infliximab during first tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blocking treatment course in rheumatoid arthritis. Special emphasis is placed on potential predictors for treatment termination and the impact of concomitant methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Patients (n = 1,161) with active rheumatoid arthritis, not responding to at least two DMARDs including MTX starting etanercept or infliximab therapy for the first time, were included in a structured clinical follow-up protocol. Information on diagnosis, disease duration, previous and ongoing DMARDs, treatment start and termination, as well as cause of withdrawal was prospectively collected during the period of March 1999 through December 2004. Patients were divided into six groups according to TNF-blocking drugs and concomitant DMARDs. Five-year level (one-year) of adherence to therapy was 36% (69%) for patients receiving infliximab in combination with MTX compared with 65% (89%) for patients treated with etanercept and MTX (p < 0.001). Cox regression models showed that the risk for premature treatment termination of patients treated with infliximab was threefold higher than for etanercept (p < 0.001). Also, the regression analysis showed that patients receiving concomitant MTX had better treatment continuation than patients treated solely with TNF blockers (p < 0.001). Moreover, patients receiving concomitant MTX had superior drug survival than patients receiving other concomitant DMARDs (p < 0.010). The superior effect of MTX was associated primarily with fewer treatment terminations because of adverse events. In addition, the study identifies low C-reactive protein level, high age, elevated health assessment questionnaire score, and higher previous number of DMARDs as predictors of premature treatment termination. In summary, treatment with etanercept has higher adherence to therapy than treatment with infliximab. Concomitant MTX is associated with improved treatment continuation of biologics when compared with both TNF blockers as monotherapy and TNF blockers combined with other DMARDs.

Background

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) extend the treatment choices for rheumatoid arthritis patients with suboptimal response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of EU-licensed bDMARD combination therapy or monotherapy for patients intolerant of or contraindicated to continued methotrexate.

Methods

Comprehensive, structured literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as hand-searching of conference proceedings and reference lists. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials reporting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria scores of 20, 50, and 70 between 12 and 30 weeks’ follow-up and enrolling adult patients meeting ACR classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with and with an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs were eligible. To estimate the relative efficacy of treatments whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in WinBUGS using fixed and random-effects, logit-link models fitted to the binomial ACR 20/50/70 trial data.

Results

The systematic review identified 10,625 citations, and after a review of 2450 full-text papers, there were 29 and 14 eligible studies for the combination and monotherapy meta-analyses, respectively. In the combination analysis, all licensed bDMARD combinations had significantly higher odds of ACR 20/50/70 compared to DMARDs alone, except for the rituximab comparison, which did not reach significance for the ACR 70 outcome (based on the 95% credible interval). The etanercept combination was significantly better than the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes, with no significant differences between the etanercept combination and certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab. Licensed-dose etanercept, adalimumab, and tocilizumab monotherapy were significantly better than placebo in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes. Sensitivity analysis indicated that including studies outside the target population could affect the results.

Conclusion

Licensed bDMARDs are efficacious in patients with an inadequate response to conventional therapy, but tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor combination therapies are not equally effective.

Effectiveness of therapy with individual disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is limited, and the number of available DMARDs is finite. Therefore, at some stage during the lengthy course of RA, institution of traditional DMARDs that have previously been applied may have to be reconsidered. In the present study we investigated the effectiveness of re-employed methotrexate in patients with a history of previous methotrexate failure (original course). A total of 1,490 RA patients (80% female, 59% rheumatoid factor positive) were followed from their first presentation, yielding a total of 6,470 patient-years of observation. We identified patients in whom methotrexate was re-employed after at least one intermittent course of a different DMARD. We compared reasons for discontinuation, improvement in acute phase reactants, and cumulative retention rates of methotrexate therapy between the original course of methotrexate and its re-employment. Similar analyses were peformed for other DMARDs. Methotrexate was re-employed in 86 patients. Compared with the original courses, re-employment was associated with a reduced risk for treatment termination because of ineffectiveness (P = 0.02, by McNemar test), especially if the maximum methotrexate dose of the original course had been low (<12.5 mg/week; P = 0.02, by logistic regression). In a Cox regression model, re-employed MTX was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of treatment termination compared with the original course of methotrexate, adjusting for dose and year of employment (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.42–0.97; P = 0.04). These findings were not recapitulated in analyses of re-employment of other DMARDs. Re-employment of MTX despite prior inefficacy, but not re-employment of other DMARDs, is an effective therapeutic option, especially in those patients in whom the methotrexate dose of the original course was low.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of different concomitant disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on the persistence with antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Method

This analysis included 10 396 patients with RA registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a prospective observational cohort study, who were starting their first anti-TNF therapy and were receiving one of the following DMARD treatments at baseline: no DMARD (n=3339), methotrexate (MTX) (n=4418), leflunomide (LEF) (n=610), sulfasalazine (SSZ) (n=308), MTX+SSZ (n=902), MTX+ hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (n=401) or MTX+SSZ+HCQ (n=418). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to study the persistence with anti-TNF therapy in each DMARD subgroup up to 5 years. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by anti-TNF used and start year and adjusted for a number of potential confounders, were used to compare treatment persistence overall and according to the reason for discontinuation between each of the DMARD subgroups, using MTX as reference.

Results

One-year drug survival (95% CI) for the first anti-TNF therapy was 71% (71% to 72%) but this dropped to 42% (41% to 43%) at 5 years. Compared with MTX, patients receiving no DMARD, LEF or SSZ were more likely to discontinue their first anti-TNF therapy while patients receiving MTX in combination with other DMARDs showed better treatment persistence.

Conclusions

These results support the continued use of background DMARD combinations which include MTX. Consideration should be given to the discontinuation of LEF and SSZ monotherapy at the time anti-TNF therapies are started, with the possible exception of the SSZ+ETN combination.

Introduction

To identify markers and mechanisms of resistance to adalimumab therapy, we studied global gene expression profiles in synovial tissue specimens obtained from severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients before and after initiation of treatment.

Methods

Paired synovial biopsies were obtained from the affected knee of 25 DMARD (disease-modifying antirheumatic drug)-resistant RA patients at baseline (T0) and 12 weeks (T12) after initiation of adalimumab therapy. DAS28-CRP (disease activity score using 28 joint counts-C-reactive protein) scores were computed at the same time points, and patients were categorized as good, moderate, or poor responders according to European League Against Rheumatism criteria. Global gene expression profiles were performed in a subset of patients by means of GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Arrays, and confirmatory immunohistochemistry experiments were performed on the entire cohort.

Results

Gene expression studies performed at baseline identified 439 genes associated with poor response to therapy. The majority (n = 411) of these genes were upregulated in poor responders and clustered into two specific pathways: cell division and regulation of immune responses (in particular, cytokines, chemokines, and their receptors). Immunohistochemistry experiments confirmed that high baseline synovial expression of interleukin-7 receptor α chain (IL-7R), chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 11 (CXCL11), IL-18, IL-18 receptor accessory (IL-18rap), and MKI67 is associated with poor response to adalimumab therapy. In vitro experiments indicated that genes overexpressed in poor responders could be induced in fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS) cultures by the addition of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) alone, IL-1β alone, the combination of TNF-α and IL-17, and the combination of TNF-α and IL-1β.

Conclusions

Gene expression studies of the RA synovium may be useful in the identification of early markers of response to TNF blockade. Genes significantly overexpressed at baseline in poor responders are induced by several cytokines in FLSs, thereby suggesting a role for these cytokines in the resistance to TNF blockade in RA.

Background: There is a wide variation in responses to standard disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Whether multidrug resistance, failure to respond to several DMARDs, is a specific entity over and above that expected by chance alone is unclear.

Objective: To identify patients with RA who demonstrate a multidrug resistant phenotype and to determine what proportion of the variance in drug responses is due to patient related factors.

Methods: Patients with RA (1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria) were identified from clinics at Manchester Royal Infirmary and through the Arthritis Research Campaign National RA Repository. The clinic records were reviewed and multidrug resistance was defined as stopping three or more DMARDs owing to lack of efficacy after an adequate trial of the drug. Logistic regression measured by a random effects model was used to determine the relative contribution of the drug and subject related differences to the multidrug resistance.

Results: 265 patients (210 (79.3%) female) were studied. The mean (SD) age and disease duration were 52.2 (12.9) and 10.7 (8.8) years, respectively. Patients had a median (range) of 2 (1–8) DMARD courses. Failure of at least one DMARD due to inefficacy occurred in 105 (40%) and 13 (5%) were multidrug resistant. Overall, 35% of the variance in drug responses was due to between-subject differences (p=0.02). Rheumatoid factor (RF) status contributed significantly to this (OR=2.15, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.00 to 4.62) but explained only 3% of the total variance in drug inefficacy.

Conclusion: Multidrug resistance occurs in an uncommon (5%) but important subgroup of patients with RA. The between-subject variance is not fully explained by demographics and RF status. Understanding the biological mechanisms that contribute to multidrug resistance may suggest new therapeutic approaches and targets in RA.

Background

Methotrexate (MTX) is the current gold standard conventional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and is effluxed from cells by several transmembrane proteins, including multidrug resistance protein‐1 (MRP1). It is hypothesised that the overexpression of these proteins may mediate reduced efficacy of MTX. To date, it is unclear how expression of these proteins changes over time or after exposure to drugs.

Aims

To compare MRP1 expression in newly diagnosed patients with DMARD‐naive rheumatoid arthritis with that in healthy controls and to investigate how MRP1 expression changed after exposure to MTX.

Methods

18 newly diagnosed patients with DMARD‐naive rheumatoid arthritis and 14 healthy controls were recruited. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell counts were taken at baseline and after 6 months' treatment with MTX. Cells were separated by density gradient centrifugation and MRP1 expression was measured using the QCRL‐1 monoclonal antibody.

Results

MRP1 expression in patients did not seem to be up regulated compared with that in healthy controls. In patients who were positive for MRP1 at baseline (61%), treatment with MTX and folic acid led to a marked down regulation of MRP1 expression at 6 months.

Conclusion

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis expressing MRP1, treatment with MTX and folic acid led to down regulation of MRP1 expression. Further studies are required to determine the mechanism behind this observation and whether MRP1 expression mediates altered efficacy to MTX.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease in which chronic inflammation leads to joint destruction and extra-articular complications. Early and effective inhibition of inflammation is critical in order to prevent the progressive joint damage that occurs rapidly after onset of the disease. In the past, treatment for this purpose was limited to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), which were often suboptimal. Within the last decade however, the development of biologic therapies, targeted against cytokines and cells involved in the inflammatory process, has revolutionized the management of RA. Disease remission is now an achievable goal in newly diagnosed patients. Since the advent of the first tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor in 1999, other biologics have proved necessary as individuals respond to varying degrees with different therapies. Several are now available for the treatment of patients with RA that remains active despite DMARD treatment. This article reviews the evidence, over the last decade, of the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies used in this context, and the recent clinical data supporting the use of biologic therapy earlier in the disease process as first-line therapy.

Background

Treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may improve outcomes compared to conventional therapy (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intra-articular corticosteroids). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of DMARDs versus conventional therapy and versus other DMARDs.

Results

A systematic evidence review of 156 reports identified in MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and by hand searches. There is some evidence that methotrexate is superior to conventional therapy. Among children who have responded to a biologic DMARD, randomized discontinuation trials suggest that continued treatment decreases the risk of having a flare. However, these studies evaluated DMARDs with different mechanisms of action (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, intravenous immunoglobulin, tocilizumab) and used varying comparators and follow-up periods. Rates of serious adverse events are similar between DMARDs and placebo in published trials. This review identified 11 incident cases of cancer among several thousand children treated with one or more DMARD.

Conclusions

Few data are available to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of either specific DMARDs or general classes of DMARDs. However, based on the overall number, quality, and consistency of studies, there is moderate strength of evidence to support that DMARDs improve JIA-associated symptoms. Limited data suggest that short-term risk of cancer is low.

Purpose:

Methotrexate (MTX) is the first choice conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) for rheumatoid arthritis. It is not universally effective, however; although to date it is not possible to predict with any accuracy which patients will respond to treatment. The aim of this analysis was to examine whether clinical and genetic variables could be used to predict response to MTX.

Methods:

Patients recruited to the Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR), a primary care based inception cohort of patients with inflammatory polyarthritis, were eligible for this analysis if they were commenced on MTX as their first DMARD within 3 months of their baseline visit and had at least 2 years of follow-up data. Outcome on MTX was defined as: (1) stopped for adverse events; (2) stopped for inefficacy or second DMARD added; (3) stopped for other reasons; or (4) remained on MTX monotherapy. Multiple logistic regression was used to establish which variables (including demographics, disease activity and Health Assessment Questionnaire score) predicted stopping monotherapy for inefficacy or adverse event (with those remaining on treatment taken as the referent category). The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (AUC ROC), were used to determine how accurate the model was at predicting outcome.

Results:

309 patients were included in this analysis. At 1 year (2 years), 34 (46) patients had stopped for adverse events and 25 (49) had either stopped monotherapy for inefficacy or had a second DMARD added. 231 (188) patients remained on MTX monotherapy. The strongest predictor of inefficacy at both time points was shared epitope positivity: odds ratios (OR) 5.8 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.3 to 25.6) at 1 year, OR 3.0 (95% CI 1.3 to 7.3) at 2 years. High Health Assessment Questionnaire score (OR 1.84 95% CI 1.12 to 3.01) and female gender (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.92 to 5.28) were associated with adverse events on MTX at 1 year. However, even the most optimal combinations of the factors analysed were only weakly predictive of treatment outcome: AUC ROC for adverse events 0.68 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.78) and for inefficacy AUC ROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.6 to 0.81).

Conclusions:

Within this cohort, routine clinical and laboratory factors were poor at predicting outcome of treatment with MTX. Given the major therapeutic advantage to be derived from accurate prediction of treatment outcome, further studies will need to investigate novel biological and other markers.

Objectives:

There is controversy about the effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. The aim of this study was to explore associations between NSAID use and mortality in patients with inflammatory polyarthritis (IP).

Subjects and methods:

A total of 923 patients with new onset (IP), recruited to the UK Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) between 1990–1994, were followed up to the end of 2004. Current medication was recorded annually for the first 6 years and then every 2–3 years. Rheumatoid factor (RF) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured. Logistic regression was used to calculate all cause and CVD mortality odds ratios (OR) for NSAID use at baseline and during follow-up, adjusting for gender and time-varying covariates: RF, CRP, joint counts, smoking, steroid use, DMARD use and other medication use.

Results:

By 2004 there were 203 deaths, 85 due to CVD. At baseline, NSAIDs were used by 66% of patients. In final multivariate models, baseline NSAID use was inversely associated with all cause mortality (adjusted OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.84) and CVD mortality (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.86). Interval NSAID use had weaker mortality associations: all cause mortality (adjusted OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00), CVD mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.08).

Conclusion:

No excess CVD or all cause mortality was observed in NSAID users in this cohort of patients with IP. This is at variance with the literature relating to NSAID use in the general population. It is unclear whether this represents unmeasured confounders influencing a doctor’s decision to avoid NSAIDs in the treatment of IP.

Objectives

To evaluate the risk of septic arthritis (SA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

Methods

Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a prospective observational study, the authors compared the risk of SA between 11 881 anti-TNF-treated and 3673 non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD)-treated patients.

Results

199 patients had at least one episode of SA (anti-TNF: 179, nbDMARD: 20). Incidence rates were: anti-TNF 4.2/1000 patient years (pyrs) follow-up (95% CI 3.6 to 4.8), nbDMARD 1.8/1000 pyrs (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7). The adjusted HR for SA in the anti-TNF cohort was 2.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.4). The risk did not differ significantly between the three agents: adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. The risk was highest in the early months of therapy. The patterns of reported organisms differed in the anti-TNF cohort. Prior joint replacement surgery was a risk factor for SA in all patients. The rate of postoperative joint infection (within 90 days of surgery) was 0.7%. This risk was not significantly influenced by anti-TNF therapy.

Conclusions

Anti-TNF therapy use in RA is associated with a doubling in the risk of SA. Physicians and surgeons assessing the RA patient should be aware of this potentially life-threatening complication.

With the introduction of new disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other therapeutic agents, the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has shifted toward earlier, more aggressive therapy. The ultimate goal is to prevent structural joint damage that leads to pain and functional disability. Early diagnosis of RA is therefore essential, and early DMARD treatment combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended. Combination DMARD regimens and new biologic agents (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] therapies [infliximab, etanercept] and the interleukin [IL]-1 antagonist [anakinra]) have emerged as viable options for early treatment of RA patients. These new biologic agents and future nonbiologic agents that target proteins in signaling cascades are likely to change the landscape of RA treatments.

Objectives. Impaired endothelial function represents the early stage of atherosclerosis, which is typically associated with systemic inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis (RA). As modulators of endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression, asymmetric-dimethylarginine (ADMA) and apelin might be measured in the blood of RA patients to detect early atherosclerotic changes. We conducted a prospective, case-control study to investigate serum ADMA and apelin profiles of patients with early-stage RA (ERA) before and after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. Methods. We enrolled 20 consecutively diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients with ERA and 20 matched healthy controls. Serum ADMA and apelin levels and the 28-joint disease activity scores (DAS28) were assessed before and after 12 months of DMARDs treatment. All patients underwent ultrasonographic assessment for intima-media tickness (IMT) evaluation. Results. In the ERA group, ADMA serum levels were significantly higher than controls at baseline (P = 0.007) and significantly decreased after treatment (P = 0.012 versus controls). Baseline serum apelin levels were significantly decreased in this group (P = 0.0001 versus controls), but they were not significantly altered by treatment. IMT did not show significant changes. Conclusions. ERA is associated with alterations of serum ADMA and apelin levels, which might be used as biomarkers to detect early endothelial dysfunction in these patients.

To evaluate the prevalence of past infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the incidence of its reactivation under treatment with biological and/or nonbiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), 239 patients receiving DMARD therapy were consecutively enrolled and tested for HBV-DNA, using a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay, HBV serology including hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc), and serum levels of aminotransferase. Data prior to DMARD therapy and during follow-up were examined by reviewing medical records. Two patients (0.8%) were positive for HBsAg at the start of therapy. Sixty patients (25.1%) showed HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc-positive serology indicative of past HBV infection. Among these 60 patients, 2 patients (3.3%) experienced reactivation of viral replication (<2.1 log copies/ml) during DMARD therapy. One had been receiving tacrolimus, prednisolone, and methotrexate (MTX); the other had been treated with adalimumab, prednisolone, and MTX. Their serum aminotransferase levels remained normal, and HBsAg was negative. Ten weeks after reactivation of viral replication had been noted, the HBV-DNA titer in the former patient had increased to 2.9 log copies/ml, and HBsAg and hepatitis B e antigen had become weakly positive. In contrast, the latter patient had become negative for viral DNA without any antiviral prophylaxis. In conclusion, the use of biological and nonbiological DMARDs is relatively safe in most RA patients with past HBV infection, even when no anti-HBV prophylaxis is administered. Considering the high prevalence of past infection in RA patients and the high cost of prophylaxis against HBV reactivation, universal prophylaxis is impractical. Regular monitoring of serum viral DNA seems to be the most rational approach to preventing the development of clinically apparent hepatitis.

Introduction

The purpose of this research was to study the influence of cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption on immune response to heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, immunoglobulin levels (Ig) and markers of systemic inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondylarthropathy (SpA).

Methods

In total, 505 patients were vaccinated. Six pre-specified groups were enrolled: RA on methotrexate (MTX) treatment in some cases other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (I); RA on anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) as monotherapy (II); RA on anti-TNF+MTX+ possibly other DMARDs (III); SpA on anti-TNF as monotherapy (IV); SpA on anti-TNF+MTX+ possibly other DMARDs (V); and SpA on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or analgesics (VI). Smoking (pack-years) and alcohol consumption (g/week) were calculated from patient questionnaires. Ig, C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were determined at vaccination. IgG antibodies against serotypes 23F and 6B were measured at vaccination and after four to six weeks using standard ELISA. Immune response (ratio between post- and pre-vaccination antibodies; immune response (IR)) and positive immune response (≥2-fold increase in pre-vaccination antibodies; posIR) were calculated.

Results

Eighty-eight patients (17.4%) were current smokers. Smokers had higher CRP and ESR, lower IgG and lower IR for both serotypes (P between 0.012 and 0.045). RA patients on MTX who smoked ≥1pack-year had lower posIR for both serotypes (P = 0.021; OR 0.29; CI 0.1 to 0.7) compared to never-smokers. Alcohol consumption was associated with lower CRP (P = 0.05) and ESR (P = 0.003) but did not influence IR or Ig levels.

Conclusion

Smoking predicted impaired immune response to pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in RA patients on MTX. Smokers with arthritis had higher inflammatory markers and lower IgG regardless of diagnosis and treatment. Low to moderate alcohol consumption was related to lower levels of inflammation markers but had no impact on immune response.

Trial registration

EudraCT EU 2007-006539-29 and NCT00828997

Objective

To elaborate a clinical practice decision tree for the choice of the first disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) for untreated rheumatoid arthritis of less than six months' duration.

Methods

Four steps were employed: (1) review of published reports on DMARD efficacy against rheumatoid arthritis; (2) inventory of the information available to guide DMARD choice; (3) selection of the most pertinent information by 12 experts using a Delphi method; and (4) choice of DMARDs in 12 clinical situations defined by items selected in step 3 (28 joint disease activity score (DAS 28): ⩽3.2; >3.2 and ⩽5.1; >5.1; rheumatoid factor status (positive/negative); structural damage (with/without)—that is, 3×2×2). Thus, multiplied by all the possible treatment pairs, 180 scenarios were obtained and presented to 36 experts, who ranked treatment choices according to the Thurstone pairwise method.

Results

Among the 77 items identified, 41 were selected as pertinent to guide the DMARD choice. They were reorganised into five domains: rheumatoid arthritis activity, factors predictive of structural damage; patient characteristics; DMARD characteristics; physician characteristics. In the majority of situations, the two top ranking DMARD choices were methotrexate and leflunomide. Etanercept was an alternative for these agents when high disease activity was associated with poor structural prognosis and rheumatoid factor positivity.

Conclusions

Starting with simple scenarios and using the pairwise method, a clinical decision tree could be devised for the choice of the first DMARD to treat very early rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective

To characterise temporal trends and factors associated with the prescription of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) at the initial consultation in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Data from 2584 patients with early RA at 19 hospitals were extracted from the Swedish Rheumatoid Arthritis Register for the period 1997–2001. Disease characteristics and DMARD prescription at first consultation with the rheumatologist were investigated using cross tabulation and logistic regression.

Results

DMARD prescriptions, particularly for methotrexate, increased from 1997 to 2001 independently of patient characteristics. Stratification by hospital type showed that patients in district hospitals were less likely to be prescribed DMARDs than those in university hospitals (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69), p<0.001), independently of confounding factors. Association of the DAS28 with the likelihood of DMARD prescription was greater among patients attending district hospitals (OR = 1.65 (1.34 to 2.02), p<0.001) than those at university hospitals (OR = 1.23 (1.07 to 1.41), p = 0.003) and county hospitals (OR = 1.34 (1.01 to 1.63), p = 0.003). Interaction testing indicated that the difference was significant (p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Temporal trends in DMARD prescription indicate an increasingly aggressive approach to disease management among Swedish rheumatologists. However, the association of hospital type with DMARD prescription suggests that the adoption of research findings in clinical care varies considerably.

Objectives

Past studies have reported conflicting rates of venous thrombotic events (VTEs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The current study aimed to compare (1) the rates of VTEs in patients with RA treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy versus those treated with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs) alone and (2) the rates between each individual anti-TNF agent and nbDMARDs.

Methods

Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a national prospective observational cohort study of biological safety in patients with RA, the authors compared the incidence of VTEs between 11 881 anti-TNF- and 3673 nbDMARD-treated patients. Analysis was limited to the first VTE per person. HRs were calculated using Cox modelling. Adjustment was made for potential confounders including surgery performed during follow-up.

Results

A total of 196 first VTEs were reported (151 anti-TNF, 45 nbDMARD). Overall there was no difference in the rates of VTEs between anti-TNF- and nbDMARD-treated patients (adjusted HR 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.5)). The risk was similar across all anti-TNF agents. Rates of postoperative VTEs did not significantly differ between groups.

Conclusions

These data suggest that anti-TNF therapy is not associated with an increased risk of VTEs in RA patients.