Search

Introduction: The need for biomarkers which can predict disease course and treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is evident. We explored whether clinical and imaging responses to biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment (bDMARD) were associated with the individual's mediator production in explants obtained at baseline., Methods: RA Patients were evaluated by disease activity score 28 joint C-reactive protein (DAS 28-)), colour Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) and 3 Tesla RA magnetic resonance imaging scores (RAMRIS). Explants were established from synovectomies from a needle arthroscopic procedure prior to initiation of bDMARD. Explants were incubated with the bDMARD in question, and the productions of interleukin-6 (IL-6), monocyte chemo-attractive protein-1 (MCP-1) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1-beta (MIP-1b) were measured by multiplex immunoassays. The changes in clinical and imaging variables following a minimum of 3 months bDMARD treatment were compared to the baseline explant results. Mixed models and Spearman's rank correlations were performed. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant., Results: 16 patients were included. IL-6 production in bDMARD-treated explants was significantly higher among clinical non-responders compared to responders (P = 0.04), and a lack of suppression of IL-6 by the bDMARDS correlated to a high DAS-28 (ρ = 0.57, P = 0.03), CDUS (ρ = 0.53, P = 0.04) and bone marrow oedema (ρ = 0.56, P = 0.03) at follow-up. No clinical association was found with explant MCP-1 production. MIP-1b could not be assessed due to a large number of samples below the detection limit., Conclusions: Synovial explants appear to deliver a disease-relevant output testing which when carried out in advance of bDMARD treatment can potentially pave the road for a more patient tailored treatment approach with better treatment effects., Competing Interests: We have the following interests: This study was supported in part by Novo Nordisk. During the course of this study Martin Andersen, Kalle Söderstöm, Pieter Spee, Ulrik GW Mørch, and Lars Karlsson were employed at Novo Nordisk. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Complement activation correlates to rheumatoid arthritis disease activity, and increased amounts of the complement split product C5a is observed in synovial fluids from rheumatoid arthritis patients. Blockade of C5a or its receptor (C5aR) is efficacious in several arthritis models. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of C5a and C5aR in human rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis-both with respect to expression and function. Synovial fluid, blood and synovial samples were obtained from rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and osteoarthritis patients as a less inflammatory arthritis type, and blood from healthy subjects. Cells infiltrating synovial tissue were analysed by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry. SF and blood were analysed for biomarkers by flow cytometry or ELISA. The effect of a blocking anti-human C5aR mAb on leukocyte migration was determined using a Boyden chamber. Appropriate statistical tests were applied for comparisons. C5aR+ cells were detected in most rheumatoid arthritis, in all psoriatic arthritis, but not in non-inflammatory control synovia. C5aR+ cells were primarily neutrophils and macrophages. C5aR+ macrophages were mainly found in lymphoid aggregates in close contact with T cells. C5a levels were increased in both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis synovial fluid compared to osteoarthritis, and in blood from rheumatoid arthritis compared to healthy subjects. Neutrophil and monocyte migration to rheumatoid arthritis synovial fluid was significantly inhibited by anti-C5aR. The data support that the C5a-C5aR axis may be driving the infiltration of inflammatory cells into the synovial fluid and synovium in both rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis, and suggest that C5a or C5aR may be a promising treatment target in both diseases.

Objectives: Biologic agents have dramatically changed treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To date only scarce head-to-head data exist especially when the biological therapies are given as monotherapy without concomitant disease modifying drugs (DMARDs). Thus the objective of the current study is to evaluate treatment response of all available biological therapies with special focus on utility (EQ-5D-3L) and drug survival of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) prescribed as monotherapy in RA patients in southern Sweden., Materials and Methods: All RA patients registered in a regional database as initiating bDMARD as monotherapy, i.e. without concomitant conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), from 1st of January 2006 through 31st of December 2012, were included. Patients were followed from initiation of the first dose of bDMARD monotherapy treatment until withdrawal from treatment, loss of follow-up or 31st of December 2012. Descriptive statistics for utility (EQ-5D-3L), effectiveness, and drug survival of bDMARD monotherapy were calculated., Results: During the study period, a total of 554 patients were registered in SSATG as initiating bDMARD monotherapy. Most of the patients were women (81%), with a mean age of 57 years. The average disease duration was more than 12 years, and on average the patients had previously been treated with approximately four different csDMARDs. Fifty-five percent of the patients were initiating their first bDMARD, 26% their second, and 19% their third or more. At baseline the average EQ-5D-3L was 0.34. Most patients had moderate to high disease activity, with a mean DAS28 of 5.0, and were substantially disabled, with an average HAQ score of 1.4. At 6 months´ follow-up, the EQ-5D-3L in patients still on the biologic drug had increased by mean 0.23 (SD 0.4) with no differences between type of bDMARD (p = 0.49). The mean change in EQ-5D-3L ranged from 0.11 (rituximab and infliximab) to 0.42 (tocilizumab). Although the changes were numerically different, no distinct pattern favored any particular bDMARD for EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.49) or other clinical outcomes. Overall, DAS28 defined remission and low disease activity were achieved in 20% and 43% of patients, respectively. Drug survival rates were statistically significantly different between bDMARDs (p = 0.01), with the highest rates observed for rituximab, followed by etanercept. After failing first course of anti-TNF, patients switching to another mode of action had significantly higher drug survival than those switching to a second course of anti-TNF therapy (p = 0.02)., Conclusions: Utility (EQ-5D-3L) increased after 6 months of all bDMARD treatments in monotherapy, indicating improvement of patients' quality of life. After failure of anti-TNF treatment in monotherapy, switching to another mode of action may be associated with better drug survival than starting a second TNF-inhibitor., Competing Interests: TSJ: has received grant support to the institute from AbbVie and Roche; CT: has received fees for speaking and consultancy from Pfizer, UCB, Roche, AbbVie, BMS and MSD; MK: none declared; ME: none declared; AT: none declared; RC: has received grant support to the institution and/or provided expert advice and/or presentations for Abbott/AbbVie, Amgen, HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Hospira, Ipsen, Laboratoires Expanscience, MSD, Mundipharma, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Wyeth; HB: received consulting fees and/or grants from AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and BMS; PG: none declared; LEK: has received fees for speaking and consultancy from Pfizer, UCB, Roche, AbbVie, BMS and MSD. The authors’ conflict of interest does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objectives: With the present study we wanted to explore the impact of treatment with a tumor necrosis factor-α -inhibitor (TNFi) on levels of soluble biomarkers in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and to identify predictors of impaired drug levels and development of anti-TNFi antibodies (anti-TNFi Abs)., Methods: Blood samples from 26 patients with established RA were taken at baseline and following 6 months of treatment with adalimumab or infliximab. Samples were analyzed for levels of TNFi, interleukin (IL)-6, and soluble TNF-receptors 1 and -2 (sTNF-R1 and -2) and for presence of anti-TNFi Abs. Clinical and demographic data were recorded as well., Results: During the initial 6 months treatment, DAS28(CRP) (Disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein) and levels of IL-6 and sTNF-R2 decreased significantly in patients without anti-TNFi Abs and in patients retaining detectable drug levels. The levels of other tested cytokines (TNF-α, TNF-β, IL-1ra, IL-1b, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12(p70), IL-13, IL-17A, IL-17F, and IL-33) were generally below detection limits. Higher baseline levels of IL-6 associated with undetectable levels of TNFi at follow-up. Anti-TNFi Abs were associated with decreased drug levels, but no predictors for anti-TNFi Ab development could be found., Conclusion: The effect of treatment with TNFi on RA disease activity depends on levels of active drug, and by presence of anti-TNFi Abs. In patients who retain detectable drug levels, and in the absence of anti-TNFi Abs, clinical outcome is improved during treatment, and circulating levels of IL-6 and sTNF-R2 decrease. Baseline levels of IL-6 may predict depletion of TNFi and may identify patients at risk of treatment failure., Competing Interests: Dr. Eng has served as a speaker for Pfizer. Dr. Bendtzen has served as a speaker for Pfizer and Hospira, and owns stocks in Novo-Nordisk and Eurodiagnostica. Dr. Bliddal has received consulting fees, honoraria, research or institutional support, educational grants, equipment, services or expenses from: Abbott, Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Axellus, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cambridge Nutritional Foods, Dansk Droge, Eurovita, Ferrosan, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoechst, LEO, Lundbeck, MSD, Mundipharma, Norpharma, NOVO, NutriCare, Nycomed, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Pierre-Fabre, Proctor & Gamble, Rhone-Poulenc, Roche, Roussel, Schering-Plough, Searle, Serono, UCB, Wyeth. Dr. Bliddal is not employed by and holds no shares in any of these companies. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objective: To assess the effects of one intra-articular corticosteroid injection two weeks prior to an exercise-based intervention program for reducing pain sensitivity in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA)., Design: Randomized, masked, parallel, placebo-controlled trial involving 100 participants with clinical and radiographic knee OA that were randomized to one intra-articular injection on the knee with either 1 ml of 40 mg/ml methylprednisolone (corticosteroid) dissolved in 4 ml lidocaine (10 mg/ml) or 1 ml isotonic saline (placebo) mixed with 4 ml lidocaine (10 mg/ml). Two weeks after the injections all participants undertook a 12-week supervised exercise program. Main outcomes were changes from baseline in pressure-pain sensitivity (pressure-pain threshold [PPT] and temporal summation [TS]) assessed using cuff pressure algometry on the calf. These were exploratory outcomes from a randomized controlled trial., Results: A total of 100 patients were randomized to receive either corticosteroid (n = 50) or placebo (n = 50); 45 and 44, respectively, completed the trial. Four participants had missing values for PPT and one for TS at baseline; thus modified intention-to-treat populations were analyzed. The mean group difference in changes from baseline at week 14 was 0.6 kPa (95% CI: -1.7 to 2.8; P = 0.626) for PPT and 384 mm×sec (95% CI: -2980 to 3750; P = 0.821) for TS., Conclusions: These results suggest that adding intra-articular corticosteroid injection 2 weeks prior to an exercise program does not provide additional benefits compared to placebo in reducing pain sensitivity in patients with knee OA., Trial Registration: EU clinical trials (EudraCT): 2012-002607-18.

Background: Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website., Objectives: This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy., Results: FDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The "signal" in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical., Conclusion: There was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias).

Objective: To determine if variations in trial eligibility criteria and patient baseline characteristics could be considered effect modifiers of the treatment response when testing targeted therapies (biological agents and targeted synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study of all trials evaluating a targeted therapy approved by regulatory authorities for treating RA. The database search was completed on December 11th 2013. Eligible trials reported ACR20 data at months 3-6 and used an add-on design. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated from the response rates and compared among the trial eligibility criteria/patient baseline characteristics of interest. Comparisons are presented as the Ratio of Odds Ratios (ROR)., Results: Sixty-two trials (19,923 RA patients) were included in the primary analyses using ACR20 response. Overall, targeted therapies constituted an effective treatment (OR 3.96 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.41 to 4.60). The majority of the trial eligibility criteria and patient baseline characteristics did not modify treatment effect. The added benefit of targeted therapies was lower in trials including "DMARD-naïve" patients compared with trials including "DMARD inadequate responders" (ROR = 0.45, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.66) and trials including "targeted therapy inadequate responders" (0.50, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.87), test for interaction: p = 0.0002. Longer mean disease duration was associated with a higher likelihood of responding to treatment (β = 1.05, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.11 OR's per year; p = 0.03). Analyses conducted using DAS28-remission as the outcome supported the above-mentioned findings., Conclusion: Our results suggest that a highly selective inclusion is not associated with greater treatment effect, as might otherwise be expected. The added benefit of a targeted therapy was lower in trials including patients who were DMARD-naïve and trials including patients with shorter disease durations.

Objective: The objective was to investigate how postural control in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients, with different structural severities and pain levels, is reorganized under different sensory conditions., Methods: Forty-two obese patients (BMI range from 30.1 to 48.7 kg*m(-2), age range from 50 to 74 years) with KOA were evaluated. One minute of quiet standing was assessed on a force platform during 4 different sensory conditions, applied 3 times at random: Eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC) standing on firm and soft (foam) surfaces (EO-soft and EC-soft). Centre of pressure (Cop) standard deviation, speed, range and Cop mean position in both directions (anterior-posterior and medial-lateral) were extracted from the force platform data. Structural disease severity was assessed from semiflexed standing radiographs and graded by the Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) score. Pain intensity immediately before the measurements was assessed by numeric rating scale (range: 0-10)., Results: The patients were divided into "less severe" (KL 1 and 2, n = 24) and "severe" (KL>2, n = 18) group. The CoP range in the medial-lateral direction was larger in the severe group when compared with the less severe group during EC-soft condition (P<0.01). Positive correlation between pain intensity and postural sway (range in medial-lateral direction) was found during EC condition, indicating that the higher the pain intensity, the less effective is the postural control applied to restore an equilibrium position while standing without visual information., Conclusion: THE RESULTS SUPPORT THAT: (i) the postural reorganization under manipulation of the different sensory information is worse in obese KOA patients with severe degeneration and/or high pain intensity when compared with less impaired patients, and (ii) higher pain intensity is related to worse body balance in obese KOA patients.