Objective To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy.Design Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial.Setting Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015.Participants 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded.Interventions 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years.Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set.Results 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval −7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events.Conclusions The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.
BackgroundEven though progressive rhinosinusitis with osteitis is a major clinical problem in granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), there are no studies on how GPA-related osteitis develops over time, and no quantitative methods for longitudinal assessment.Here, we aimed to identify simple and robust CT-based methods for capture and quantification of time-dependent changes in GPA-related paranasal sinus osteitis and compare performance of the methods under study in a largely unselected GPA cohort.MethodsGPA patients (n = 121) with ≥3 paranasal CT scans obtained ≥12 months apart and control patients not having GPA or rhinosinusitis (n = 15) were analysed by: (i) Global osteitis scoring scale (GOSS), originally developed for chronic rhinosinusitis; (ii) Paranasal sinus volume by manual segmentation; (iii) Mean maxillary and sphenoid diameter normalised to landmark distances (i.e. diameter ratio measurement, DRM).ResultsTime-dependent changes in GPA-related osteitis were equally well measured by the simple DRM and the labour-intensive volume method while GOSS missed ongoing changes in cases with extensive osteitis. GOSS at last CT combined with DRM identified three distinct patient groups: (i) The no osteitis group, who had no osteitis and no change in DRM from baseline CT to last CT (45/121 GPA patients and 15/15 disease controls); (ii) Stable osteitis group, with presence of osteitis, but no change in DRM across time (31 GPA); (iii) Progressive osteitis, defined by declining DRM (45 GPA).ConclusionsWe suggest DRM and GOSS as complementary methods for capturing, classifying and quantifying time-dependent changes in GPA-related osteitis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12880-019-0315-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
IMPORTANCE Sustained remission has become an achievable goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but how to best treat patients in clinical remission remains unclear.OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of tapering of csDMARDs, compared with continuing csDMARDs without tapering, on the risk of flares in patients with RA in sustained remission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS ARCTIC REWIND was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label noninferiority study conducted in 10 Norwegian hospital-based rheumatology practices. A total of 160 patients with RA in remission for 12 months who were receiving stable csDMARD therapy were enrolled between June 2013 and June 2018, and the final visit occurred in June 2019. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to half-dose csDMARDs (n = 80) or stable-dose csDMARDs (n = 80). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was the proportion of patients with a disease flare between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) greater than 1.6 (threshold for RA remission), an increase in DAS score of 0.6 units or more, and at least 2 swollen joints. A disease flare could also be recorded if both the patient and investigator agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. A risk difference of 20% was defined as the noninferiority margin. RESULTSOf 160 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [11.9] years; 66% female), 156 received the allocated therapy, of which 155 without any major protocol violations were included in the primary analysis population (77 receiving half-dose and 78 receiving stable-dose csDMARDs). Flare occurred in 19 patients (25%) in the half-dose csDMARD group compared with 5 (6%) in the stable-dose csDMARD group (risk difference, 18% [95% CI, 7%-29%]). Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (44%) in the half-dose group and 42 (54%) in the stable-dose group, none leading to study discontinuation. No deaths occurred.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA in remission taking csDMARD therapy, treatment with half-dose vs stable-dose csDMARDs did not demonstrate noninferiority for the percentage of patients with disease flares over 12 months, and there were significantly fewer flares in the stable-dose group. These findings do not support treatment with half-dose therapy.
Objective To identify and characterize genetic loci associated with the risk of developing anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAV). Methods Genetic association analyses were performed after Illumina sequencing of 1,853 genes and subsequent replication with genotyping of selected SNPs in a total cohort of 1110 Scandinavian cases with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and 1589 controls. A novel AAV-associated SNP was analysed for allele-specific effects on gene expression using luciferase reporter assay. Results Proteinase 3 ANCA positive (PR3-ANCA+) AAV was significantly associated with two independent loci in the HLA-DPB1/A1 region (rs1042335, p= 6.3 x 1 0 −61, Odds ratio (OR)= 0.10; rs9277341, p= 1.5 x 1 0 −44, OR = 0.22) and with rs28929474 in the SERPINA1 gene (p= 2.7 x 1 0 −10, OR = 2.9). Myeloperoxidase (MPO)-ANCA+ AAV was significantly associated with the HLA-DQB1/HLA-DQA2 locus (rs9274619, p= 5.4 x 1 0 −25, OR = 3.7) and with a rare variant in the BACH2 gene (rs78275221, p= 7.9 x 1 0 −7, OR = 3.0), the latter a novel susceptibility locus for MPO-ANCA+ GPA/MPA. The rs78275221-A risk allele reduced luciferase gene expression in endothelial cells, specifically, as compared with the non-risk allele. Conclusion We identified a novel susceptibility locus for MPO-ANCA+ AAV and propose that the associated variant is of mechanistic importance, exerting a regulatory function on gene expression in specific cell types.
ObjectiveTo develop and validate a responsive and feasible ultrasound inflammation score for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe used data from cohorts of early RA (development) and established RA starting/switching biologic therapy (validation). 4 tendons and 36 joints were examined by a grey scale (GSUS) and power Doppler semiquantitative ultrasound (PDUS) scoring system (full score). Ultrasound score components were selected based on factor analyses of 3-month change in the development cohort. Responsiveness was assessed by standardised response means (SRMs). We assessed the proportion of information retained from the full score by linear regression.Results118 patients with early and 212 patients with established RA were included. The final ultrasound score included 8 joints (metacarpophalangeal 1–2–3, proximal interphalangeal 2–3, radiocarpal, metatarsophalangeal 2–3) and 1 tendon (extensor carpi ulnaris) examined bilaterally. The 6-month SRMs for the final score were −1.24 (95% CI −1.47 to −1.02) for GSUS, and −1.09 (−1.25 to −0.92) for PDUS in early RA, with 87% of total information retained for GSUS and 90% for PDUS. The new score performed somewhat better than formerly proposed scores in the validation cohort.ConclusionsThe Ultrasound in Rheumatoid Arthritis 9 joint/tendon score (USRA9) inflammation score showed good responsiveness, retained most of the information from the original full score and overall performed better than previous scores in a validation cohort.Trial registration numbersNCT01205854, ACTRN12610000284066; Post-results.
ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare achievement of remission in 2 early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treat‐to‐target (TTT) cohorts, a tight control cohort with a target of stringent remission in a randomized controlled trial and an observational cohort targeting a looser definition of remission in clinical practice.MethodsWe analyzed data from the Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: a randomised trial examining the benefit of ultrasound in a Clinical Tight Control regimen (ARCTIC) trial and the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Clinic (NOR‐VEAC) observational study. Both were Norwegian multicenter studies that included disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive RA patients and implemented TTT. The target in the ARCTIC trial was remission defined as a Disease Activity Score (DAS) of <1.6 plus 0 swollen joints on a 44‐joint count, while the target in the NOR‐VEAC study was the less stringent remission target of a DAS28 of <2.6. We assessed achievement of the study‐specific targets and compared the odds of achieving the American College of Rheumatology(ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Boolean remission during 2 years of follow‐up.ResultsWe included 189 patients from the ARCTIC trial and 330 patients from the NOR‐VEAC study. The study‐specific target had been achieved in more than half of the patients in each cohort at 6 months, increasing to >60% at 12 and 24 months. The odds of achieving ACR/EULAR Boolean remission during follow‐up were higher in the ARCTIC trial than in the NOR‐VEAC study, with significant differences at 3 months (odds ratio 1.73 [95% confidence interval 1.03–2.89]), 12 months (odds ratio 1.97 [95% confidence interval 1.21–3.20]), and 24 months (odds ratio 1.82 [95% confidence interval 1.05–3.16]).ConclusionA majority of patients in both cohorts reached the study‐specific treatment targets. More patients in the ARCTIC trial than in the NOR‐VEAC study achieved ACR/EULAR Boolean remission during follow‐up, suggesting that targeting a more stringent definition of remission provides further potential for favorable outcomes of a TTT strategy.
Background:Remission is the preferred treatment target in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and many patients require biologic DMARDs to reach this state. It is debated whether tapering of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment to discontinuation should be considered in RA patients who sustain remission on treatment (1).Objectives:The primary study objective was to assess the effect of tapering and withdrawal of TNFi on the risk of flares in RA patients in clinical remission.Methods:In the non-inferiority ARCTIC REWIND trial, RA patients in remission for at least 12 months on stable TNFi therapy were randomly assigned to continued stable TNFi or tapering (half-dose TNFi for 4 months, thereafter withdrawal of TNFi), with visits every four months. csDMARD co-medication was kept stable in both arms. Patients had to be in DAS remission at inclusion with 0/44 swollen joints. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with disease flare during the 12-month study period (defined as DAS>1.6, change in DAS>0.6 and 2 or more swollen joints, or the physician and patient agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred). Full-dose TNFi was reinstated in case of flares in the tapering arm. The non-inferiority margin was 20%, with a predefined superiority test if non-inferiority was not shown. The inferiority null-hypothesis was tested in the per-protocol population by mixed effect logistic regression. Radiographs were scored by van der Heijde modified Sharp score (0 and 12 months, average of two readers, progression: ≥1 unit change). ClinicaltrialsNCT01881308.Results:We randomised 99 patients, 92 received the allocated treatment strategy, 84 were included in the per-protocol population. Baseline characteristics, clinical and ultrasound disease activity were balanced (Table). csDMARD co-medication was used by 93% in the stable and 88% in the tapering arm. In the primary analysis, 5% of patients in the stable TNFi arm experienced a flare during 12 months, compared to 63% in the tapering TNFi arm. The risk difference (95% CI) was 58% (42% to 74%, Fig 1), with stable treatment being deemed superior to tapering. 90% in the stable and 81% in the tapering arm did not show progression of radiographic joint damage, difference (95% CI) -9% (-24%, 6%). At 12 months, DAS scores, DAS remission and function were similar between groups (Fig 2). The numbers of adverse events (AE)/serious AE in the stable and tapering arm were 57/2 and 50/3, respectively, with 26 and 15 infections.Conclusion:In a randomised clinical trial assessing patients in prolonged and deep RA remission, we observed a large increase in the flare rate in patients who tapered and discontinued TNFi. Patients responded well to reinstated treatment and remission rates in the two study arms were comparable at 12 months.References:[1]Smolen et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. ARD 2020Table 1.Baseline values – n (%), mean (SD), or median (IQR)Stable, n=45Tapering, n=47Age, yrs57 (11)58 (13)Female30 (67%)25 (53%)ACPA+35 (78%)36 (77%)Symptom duration, yrs10 (7)12 (7)DAS0.9 (0.4)0.8 (0.3)CRP mg/L1 (1 – 2)1 (1 – 3)No ulttrasound power Doppler signal in any of 32 joints42 (96%)44 (94%)Disclosure of Interests:Siri Lillegraven: None declared, Nina Paulshus Sundlisæter: None declared, Anna-Birgitte Aga: None declared, Joe Sexton: None declared, Inge Olsen: None declared, Åse Lexberg: None declared, Tor Magne Madland: None declared, Hallvard Fremstad: None declared, Christian A. Høili Consultant of: Novartis, Gunnstein Bakland Consultant of: Novartis, UCB, Cristina Spada: None declared, Hilde Haukeland Consultant of: Novartis, Inger M. Hansen: None declared, Ellen Moholt: None declared, Till Uhlig Consultant of: Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Grünenthal, Novartis, Daniel Solomon Grant/research support from: Funding from Abbvie and Amgen unrelated to this work, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tore K. Kvien Grant/research support from: Received grants from Abbvie, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD and Roche (not relevant for this abstract)., Consultant of: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Paid instructor for: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Speakers bureau: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Espen A Haavardsholm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Pfizer Inc, MSD Norway, Roche Norway, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Lilly, Paid instructor for: UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Lilly, Roche, MSD
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.