Désirée van der Heijde

Study of active controlled monotherapy used for rheumatoid arthritis, an IL‐6 inhibitor (SAMURAI): evidence of clinical and radiographic benefit from an x ray reader‐blinded randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab

Objective: To evaluate the ability of tocilizumab (a humanised anti-IL-6 receptor antibody) monotherapy to inhibit progression of structural joint damage in patients with RA. Methods: In a multi-centre, x ray reader-blinded, randomised, controlled trial, 306 patients with active RA of <5 years’ duration were allocated to receive either tocilizumab monotherapy at 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for 52 weeks. Radiographs of hands and forefeet were scored by the van der Heijde modified Sharp method. Results: Patients had a mean disease duration of 2.3 years and a disease activity score in 28 joints of 6.5 at baseline. Mean total modified Sharp score (TSS) was 29.4, which was very high despite the relatively short disease duration. At week 52, the tocilizumab group showed statistically significantly less radiographic change in TSS (mean 2.3; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.2) than the DMARD group (mean 6.1; 95% CI 4.2 to 8.0; p<0.01). Tocilizumab monotherapy also improved signs and symptoms. The overall incidences of AEs were 89% and 82% (serious AEs: 18% and 13%; serious infections: 7.6% and 4.1%) in the tocilizumab and DMARD groups, respectively. Conclusion: Tocilizumab monotherapy was generally well tolerated and provided radiographic benefit in patients with RA.

Novel approaches in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and other spondyloarthritides.

The therapeutic options for patients suffering from severe forms of spondyloarthritis (SpA) have been rather limited in recent decades. There is now accumulating evidence that anti-TNF therapy is highly effective in SpA, especially in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Based on the data recently published on what is now several hundred AS and PsA patients, this treatment seems to be even more effective than the same therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The anti-TNF-α agents currently available, infliximab (Remicade®; Centocor), etanercept (Enbrel®; Amgen) and adalimumab (Humira™; Abbott), are approved for the treatment of RA in the US; infliximab and etanercept are approved in Europe. The situation in SpA is different to RA because there is an unmet medical need, especially in AS, since no therapies with disease-controlling antirheumatic drugs are available for severely affected patients, especially with spinal disease. Thus, TNF blockers might even be considered as first-line immunosuppressive agents in patients with active AS and PsA who are not sufficiently treated by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and sulfasalazine, if peripheral arthritis is present. For infliximab, a dosage of 5 mg/kg at intervals between 6 and 12 weeks was necessary to constantly suppress disease activity; this is also a major aim of long-term treatment. No dose-finding studies have yet been performed. The standard dose of etanercept is 25 mg s.c. twice-weekly. No studies on adalimumab (standard RA dose 20 – 40 mg s.c. every 2 weeks) have yet been conducted in SpA. The efficacy of etanercept was first demonstrated in PsA and etanercept is now approved for this indication. A double-blind study has also been performed in AS, with similarly clearcut efficacy. There is preliminary evidence that both agents do also work in other SpA such as undifferentiated SpA. Infliximab has recently been approved for short-term treatment of severe uncontrolled AS; the approval for etanercept is pending. Studies should be performed to document the long-term efficacy of this treatment. There is hope that ankylosis might be preventable but it remains to be shown whether patients benefit from long-term anti-TNF therapy and whether radiological progression and ankylosis can be stopped. Severe adverse events have remained rare. Complicated infections including tuberculosis have been reported. Tuberculosis can be mostly prevented if patients are checked for previous contact with tuberculosis. Currently, the benefits of anti-TNF therapy in AS seem to outweigh these shortcomings.

Updating the OMERACT filter: implications of filter 2.0 to select outcome instruments through assessment of "truth": content, face, and construct validity

Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The “Truth” section of the OMERACT Filter requires that criteria be met to demonstrate that the outcome instrument meets the criteria for content, face, and construct validity. Methods. Discussion groups critically reviewed a variety of ways in which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with the Truth component of the Filter and what issues remained to be resolved. Results. The case studies showed that there is broad agreement on criteria for meeting the Truth criteria through demonstration of content, face, and construct validity; however, several issues were identified that the Filter Working Group will need to address. Conclusion. These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on how Truth will be assessed for the proposed Filter 2.0 framework, for instruments to be endorsed by OMERACT.

Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets

Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The “Truth” section of the OMERACT Filter presupposes an explicit framework for identifying the relevant core outcomes that are universal to all studies of the effects of intervention effects. There is no published outline for instrument choice or development that is aimed at measuring outcome, was derived from broad consensus over its underlying philosophy, or includes a structured and documented critique. Therefore, a new proposal for defining core areas of measurement (“Filter 2.0 Core Areas of Measurement”) was presented at OMERACT 11 to explore areas of consensus and to consider whether already endorsed core outcome sets fit into this newly proposed framework. Methods. Discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved. Results. Although there was broad acceptance of the framework in general, several important areas of construction, presentation, and clarity of the framework were questioned. The discussion groups and subsequent feedback highlighted 20 such issues. Conclusion. These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on accepting the proposed Filter 2.0 framework of Core Areas as the basis for the selection of Core Outcome Domains and hence appropriate Core Outcome Sets for clinical trials.

Prevention or retardation of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis: issues of definition, evaluation and interpretation of plain radiographs.

This article discusses methodological concepts and challenges underlying the interpretation of changes in plain radiographs of the joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A series of consensus conferences (OMERACT [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology]) has resulted in the formulation and execution of a research agenda to harmonise reading and interpretation of films. This is important in the light of the increasing evidence that drugs can impact on the progression of joint damage.In these conferences, methodological issues have been divided according to applicability tenets summarised in the OMERACT Filter of Truth, Discrimination, and Feasibility. To pass the Filter, a measure must measure what it is supposed to measure (Truth), must discriminate between clinically relevant states (Discrimination) and be feasible in terms of costs and interpretability. ‘Truth’ issues include the choice of joints, the view and other technical specifications of the radiograph, such as which abnormalities to score, the level of aggregation of the information, culminating in the choice of the scoring system. ‘Discrimination’ issues include reproducibility and sensitivity to change. The current research agenda includes items such as defining a criterion for ‘no relevant progression’, comparison between time ordered and randomly ordered reading, further comparison of methods and subscores, and methodology around missing values.

The Minimum Clinically Important Improvement and Patient-acceptable Symptom State in the BASDAI and BASFI for Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis

Objective. To establish cutoffs for the minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) and the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Patients with AS who started nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. After 4 weeks, the PASS and the MCII were defined using external anchor questions (for the PASS, patients considering their condition of AS over the prior 48 h as “acceptable” forever; and for the MCII, those reporting moderate or slightly important improvement). Consistency of the MCII and PASS were tested according to HLA-B27 status, presence/absence of SpA extraarticular manifestations, age, sex, disease duration, and baseline BASDAI/BASFI score. The 75th percentile of the cumulative distribution was used to determine the MCII and PASS. Results. In total, 283 patients from a multinational cohort were included. Overall cutoffs for the PASS were 4.1 in the BASDAI and 3.8 in the BASFI. Cutoffs for the MCII were 0.7 and 0.4 for the BASDAI and BASFI, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that disease duration and baseline BASDAI/BASFI were significantly associated with the PASS and MCII. In a subanalysis limited to patients with active disease (baseline BASDAI ≥ 4), the MCII was 1.1 for the BASDAI and 0.6 for the BASFI. Conclusion. The conceptual viability of the PASS for the BASDAI is questionable because levels approach those required for the start of biological therapy. Because the MCII is less variable than the PASS, we propose its exclusive use, with cutoffs of 1.1/0.6 for the BASDAI/BASFI in patients with active disease. Because these values are based on a subset of the study population, we recommend confirmation in larger studies focused on patients with baseline BASDAI ≥ 4.