Explore the vast range of titles available.

A novel-in-verse about a 12-year-old Dominican American girl who must keep her love of swimming a secret from her mother, is diagnosed with Juvenile Arthritis, and is forced to reimagine the person she is to become.

The mucosal origin hypothesis of rheumatoid arthritis has renewed the interest in IgA autoantibodies, but their added value over IgG anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and IgM rheumatoid factor (RF) for modern treatment outcomes remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of IgA-ACPA and IgA-RF for treatment outcomes in an early arthritis population. IgA-ACPA/RF isotypes were measured in baseline sera from 480 inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients, who were included in the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort trial (tREACH). The tREACH trial was a multicentre, stratified, single-blinded trial with a treat-to-target approach. The prognostic value of IgA-ACPA/RF was determined by evaluating differences in (1) quick-attained (< 6 months after diagnosis) and persistent remission rates, (2) DMARD-free remission and (3) biological use between IA patients with and without IgA-ACPA/RF over 3 years of follow-up. IgA-ACPA was present in 23% of patients and overlapped with IgG-ACPA positivity in 94%. Similarly, IgA-RF overlapped with IgM-RF in 90% of patients. IgA-ACPA positivity was associated with lower DFR rates and more biological use, but this effect was largely mediated by the presence of IgG-ACPA, since this effect disappeared after stratification for IgG-ACPA (HR 0.6, 95%CI 0.2-1.6 for DFR). No differences were observed in ‘quick-attained and persistent remission’ rates and for IgA-RF. Their seems to be no additional value of IgA-ACPA and IgA-RF for modern, long-term clinical outcomes. The effects of IgA-ACPA seen in our study are largely mediated by the presence of IgG-ACPA. Based on these results, there is no rationale for measuring these isotypes in daily practice.

ObjectivesThe aim of this report is to investigate the efficacy of an individually tailored, theory-based behavioural intervention for reducing daily sitting time, pain and fatigue, as well as improving health-related quality of life, general self-efficacy, physical function and cardiometabolic biomarkers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial 150 patients with RA were randomised to an intervention or a no-intervention control group. The intervention group received three individual motivational counselling sessions and short message service or text messages aimed at reduction of sedentary behaviour during the 16-week intervention period. Primary outcome was change in daily sitting time measured objectively by ActivPAL. Secondary outcomes included change in pain, fatigue, physical function, general self-efficacy, quality of life, blood pressure, blood lipids, haemoglobin A1c, body weight, body mass index, waist circumference and waist–hip ratio.Results75 patients were allocated to each group. Mean reduction in daily sitting time was −1.61 hours/day in the intervention versus 0.59 hours/day increase in the control group between-group difference −2.20 (95% CI −2.72 to −1.69; p<0.0001) hours/day in favour of the intervention group. Most of the secondary outcomes were also in favour of the intervention.ConclusionAn individually tailored, behavioural intervention reduced daily sitting time in patients with RA and improved patient-reported outcomes and cholesterol levels.Trial registration numberNCT01969604; Results.

The inflammatory contribution to type 2 diabetes (T2D) has suggested new therapeutic targets using biologic drugs designed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). On this basis, we aimed at investigating whether interleukin-1 (IL-1) inhibition with anakinra, a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist, could improve both glycaemic and inflammatory parameters in participants with RA and T2D compared with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (TNFis). This study, designed as a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, enrolled participants, followed up for 6 months, with RA and T2D in 12 Italian rheumatologic units between 2013 and 2016. Participants were randomised to anakinra or to a TNFi (i.e., adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, infliximab, or golimumab), and the primary end point was the change in percentage of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c%) (EudraCT: 2012-005370-62 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02236481). In total, 41 participants with RA and T2D were randomised, and 39 eligible participants were treated (age 62.72 ± 9.97 years, 74.4% female sex). The majority of participants had seropositive RA disease (rheumatoid factor and/or anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody [ACPA] 70.2%) with active disease (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28]: 5.54 ± 1.03; C-reactive protein 11.84 ± 9.67 mg/L, respectively). All participants had T2D (HbA1c%: 7.77 ± 0.70, fasting plasma glucose: 139.13 ± 42.17 mg). When all the enrolled participants reached 6 months of follow-up, the important crude difference in the main end point, confirmed by an unplanned ad interim analysis showing the significant effects of anakinra, which were not observed in the other group, led to the study being stopped for early benefit. Participants in the anakinra group had a significant reduction of HbA1c%, in an unadjusted linear mixed model, after 3 months (β: -0.85, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.42) and 6 months (β: -1.05, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.59). Similar results were observed adjusting the model for relevant RA and T2D clinical confounders (male sex, age, ACPA positivity, use of corticosteroids, RA duration, T2D duration, use of oral antidiabetic drug, body mass index [BMI]) after 3 months (β: -1.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.55) and 6 months (β: -1.24, p < 0.001, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.72). Participants in the TNFi group had a nonsignificant slight decrease of HbA1c%. Assuming the success threshold to be HbA1c% ≤ 7, we considered an absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 0.42 (experimental event rate = 0.54, control event rate = 0.12); thus, we estimated, rounding up, a number needed to treat (NNT) = 3. Concerning RA, a progressive reduction of disease activity was observed in both groups. No severe adverse events, hypoglycaemic episodes, or deaths were observed. Urticarial lesions at the injection site led to discontinuation in 4 (18%) anakinra-treated participants. Additionally, we observed nonsevere infections, including influenza, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, and diarrhoea in both groups. Our study has some limitations, including open-label design and previously unplanned ad interim analysis, small size, lack of some laboratory evaluations, and ongoing use of other drugs. In this study, we observed an apparent benefit of IL-1 inhibition in participants with RA and T2D, reaching the therapeutic targets of both diseases. Our results suggest the concept that IL-1 inhibition may be considered a targeted treatment for RA and T2D. The trial is registered with EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT Number: 2012-005370-62 and with ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT02236481.

ObjectivesTo investigate whether rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and shared epitope (SE) allele-related genetic markers associate with treatment response to abatacept, certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment (ACT).MethodsPatients with treatment-naïve early rheumatoid arthritis were randomised in the NORD-STAR trial to ACT, certolizumab pegol, abatacept or tocilizumab, all with methotrexate. Centralised laboratory analyses for ACPA, RF and SE were performed. Clinical Disease Activity Index remission was analysed longitudinally with logistic generalised estimating equations. Differences in treatment effect across RF, ACPA and SE subgroups were assessed with interaction terms at 24 and 48 weeks, adjusted for sex, country, age, body mass index, Disease Activity Score of 28 joints based on C-reactive protein and smoking.ResultsIn total, 778 patients were included. At 24 weeks, abatacept treatment showed a better response than ACT in the RF and/or ACPA-positive subgroups, but this effect was not significantly different from the negative subgroups. By 48 weeks, abatacept treatment showed better response regardless of RF/ACPA status. No differences were found across RF, ACPA, SE allele, valine at amino acid position 11 or valine-arginine-alanine haplotype subgroups for any biological treatment at 48 weeks.ConclusionsBased on this randomised controlled trial, abatacept treatment was associated with a better response than ACT in the RF and/or ACPA-positive subgroup at 24 weeks, but this was no longer seen at 48 weeks; adding SE allele-related genetic markers did not strengthen the association. Moreover, ACPA, RF and SE allele-related genotypes were not, alone or in combination, associated with clinical responses of importance sufficiently strongly to warrant implementation in clinical practice.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2011-004720-35; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01491815.

To define the cell populations that drive joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we applied single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), mass cytometry, bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and flow cytometry to T cells, B cells, monocytes, and fibroblasts from 51 samples of synovial tissue from patients with RA or osteoarthritis (OA). Utilizing an integrated strategy based on canonical correlation analysis of 5,265 scRNA-seq profiles, we identified 18 unique cell populations. Combining mass cytometry and transcriptomics revealed cell states expanded in RA synovia: THY1(CD90) + HLA-DRA hi sublining fibroblasts, IL1B + pro-inflammatory monocytes, ITGAX + TBX21 + autoimmune-associated B cells and PDCD1 + peripheral helper T (T PH ) cells and follicular helper T (T FH ) cells. We defined distinct subsets of CD8 + T cells characterized by GZMK + , GZMB + , and GNLY + phenotypes. We mapped inflammatory mediators to their source cell populations; for example, we attributed IL6 expression to THY1 + HLA-DRA hi fibroblasts and IL1B production to pro-inflammatory monocytes. These populations are potentially key mediators of RA pathogenesis. Defining cell types and their activation status in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is critical to understanding this disease. Raychaudhuri and colleagues leverage several single-cell -omics approaches to define the cellular processes and pathways in the human RA joint.

ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of combination therapy using certolizumab pegol (CZP) and methotrexate (MTX) as first-line treatment for MTX-naive, early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with poor prognostic factors, compared with MTX alone.MethodsMTX-naive, early RA patients with ≤12 months persistent disease, high anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide, and either rheumatoid factor positive and/or presence of bone erosions were enrolled in this multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo (PBO)-controlled study. Patients were randomised 1:1 to CZP+MTX or PBO+MTX for 52 weeks. Primary endpoint was inhibition of radiographic progression (change from baseline in modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS CFB)) at week 52. Secondary endpoints were mTSS CFB at week 24, and clinical remission rates at weeks 24 and 52.Results316 patients randomised to CZP+MTX (n=159) or PBO+MTX (n=157) had comparable baseline characteristics reflecting features of early RA (mean disease duration: 4.0 vs 4.3 months; Disease Activity Score 28-joint assessment (DAS28)) (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)): 5.4 vs 5.5; mTSS: 5.2 vs 6.0). CZP+MTX group showed significantly greater inhibition of radiographic progression relative to PBO+MTX at week 52 (mTSS CFB=0.36 vs 1.58; p<0.001) and week 24 (mTSS CFB=0.26 vs 0.86; p=0.003). Clinical remission rates (Simple Disease Activity Index, Boolean and DAS28 (ESR)) of the CZP+MTX group were significantly higher compared with those of the PBO+MTX group, at weeks 24 and 52. Safety results in both groups were similar, with no new safety signals observed with addition of CZP to MTX.ConclusionsIn MTX-naive early RA patients with poor prognostic factors, CZP+MTX significantly inhibited structural damage and reduced RA signs and symptoms, demonstrating the efficacy of CZP in these patients.Trial registration number(NCT01451203).

ObjectivesTo evaluate malignancies and their associations with baseline risk factors and cardiovascular risk scores with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsIn an open-label, randomised controlled trial (ORAL Surveillance; NCT02092467), 4362 patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 (N=1455) or 10 mg two times per day (N=1456) or TNFi (N=1451). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and HRs were calculated for adjudicated malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC and subtypes. Post hoc analyses for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC included risk factors identified via simple/multivariable Cox models and IRs/HRs categorised by baseline risk factors, history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HxASCVD) and cardiovascular risk scores.ResultsIRs for malignancies excluding NMSC and NMSC were higher with tofacitinib (combined and individual doses) versus TNFi. Risk of lung cancer (most common subtype with tofacitinib) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi. In the overall study population, the risk of malignancies excluding NMSC was similar between both tofacitinib doses and TNFi until month 18 and diverged from month 18 onwards (HR (95% CIs) for combined tofacitinib doses: 0.93 (0.53 to 1.62) from baseline to month 18 vs 1.93 (1.22 to 3.06) from month 18 onwards, interaction p=0.0469). Cox analyses identified baseline risk factors across treatment groups for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC; interaction analyses generally did not show statistical evidence of interaction between treatment groups and risk factors. HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk scores were associated with higher malignancy IRs across treatments.ConclusionsRisk of malignancies was increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi, and incidence was highest in patients with HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk. This may be due to shared risk factors for cardiovascular risk and cancer.Trial registration numbers NCT02092467, NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661

BackgroundReaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.ObjectiveTo update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.MethodsA task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.ResultsThe update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10).ConclusionsThe 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Clinical remission and low disease activity are essential treatment targets in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Although moderately active rheumatoid arthritis is common, treatment effects in moderate disease have not been well studied. Additionally, optimum use of biologics needs further investigation, including the use of induction, maintenance, and withdrawal treatment strategies. The aim of the PRESERVE trial was to assess whether low disease activity would be sustained with reduced doses or withdrawal of etanercept in patients with moderately active disease. In a randomised controlled trial, patients aged between 18 and 70 years with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis (disease activity score in 28 joints [DAS28] >3·2 and ≤5·1) despite treatment with methotrexate were enrolled at 80 centres in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia between March 6, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. To be eligible, patients had to have been receiving 15–25 mg of methotrexate every week for at least 8 weeks. In an open-label period of 36 weeks, all patients were given 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate every week. To be eligible for a subsequent double-blind period of 52 weeks, participants had to have achieved sustained low disease activity. These patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive voice-response system to one of three treatment groups: 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were stratified in blocks of three by DAS28 response (low disease activity or remission) at week 36. Patients, investigators, data analysts, and study staff were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with low disease activity at week 88 in the groups given 50 mg etanercept or placebo in the double-blind period. A conditional primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving 25 mg etanercept who achieved low disease activity. Modified intention-to-treat populations were used for analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00565409. 604 (72·4%) of 834 enrolled patients were eligible for the double-blind period, of whom 202 were assigned to 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 202 to 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, and 200 to placebo plus methotrexate. At week 88, 166 (82·6%) of 201 patients who had received at least one dose of 50 mg etanercept and one or more DAS28 evaluations had low disease activity, compared with 84 (42·6%) of 197 who had received placebo (mean difference 40·8%, 95% CI 32·5–49·1%; p<0·0001). Additionally, 159 (79·1%) of 201 patients given 25 mg etanercept had low disease activity at week 88 (mean difference from placebo 35·9%, 27·0–44·8%; p<0·0001). Conventional or reduced doses of etanercept with methotrexate in patients with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis more effectively maintain low disease activity than does methotrexate alone after withdrawal of etanercept. Pfizer.