S. Louis Bridges

2012 Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) most recently published recommendations for use of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 2008 (1). These recommendations covered indications for use, monitoring of side-effects, assessment of the clinical response to DMARDs and biologics, screening for tuberculosis (TB), and assessment of the roles of cost and patient preference in decision-making for biologic agents (1). Recognizing the rapidly evolving knowledge in RA management and the accumulation of new evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of existing and newer therapies, the ACR commissioned an update of the 2008 recommendations in select topic areas. The 2012 revision updates the 2008 ACR recommendations in the following areas: (1) indications for DMARDs and biologics; (2) switching between DMARD and biologic therapies; (3) use of biologics in high-risk patients (those with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, and malignancy); (4) screening for TB in patients starting or currently receiving biologics; and (5) vaccination in patients starting or currently receiving DMARDs or biologics (Table 1). Table 1 Overview Comparison of Topics and Medications Included in the 2008 and 2012 ACR RA Recommendations METHODS We utilized the same methodology as described in detail in the 2008 guidelines (1) to maintain consistency and to allow cumulative evidence to inform this 2012 recommendation update. These recommendations were developed by two expert panels: (1) a non-voting working group and Core Expert Panel (CEP) of clinicians and methodologists responsible for the selection of the relevant topic areas to be considered, the systematic literature review, and the evidence synthesis and creation of “clinical scenarios”; and (2) a Task Force Panel (TFP) of 11 internationally-recognized expert clinicians, patient representatives and methodologists with expertise in RA treatment, evidence-based medicine and patient preferences who were tasked with rating the scenarios created using an ordinal scale specified in the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness method (2–4). This method solicited formal input from a multi-disciplinary TFP panel to make recommendations informed by the evidence. The methods used to develop the updated ACR recommendations are described briefly below. Systematic Literature Review – Sources, Databases and Domains Literature searches for both DMARDs and biologics relied predominantly on PubMed searches) with medical subject headings (MeSH) and relevant keywords similar to those used for the 2008 ACR RA recommendations (see Appendices 1 and 2). We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), quasi-experimental designs, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), and case-control studies, with no restrictions on sample size. More details about inclusion criteria are listed below and in Appendix 3. The 2008 recommendations were based on a literature search that ended on February 14, 2007. The literature search end date for the 2012 Update was February 26, 2010 for the efficacy and safety studies and September 22, 2010 for additional qualitative reviews related to TB screening, immunization and hepatitis (similar to the 2008 methodology). Studies published subsequent to that date were not included. For biologics, we also reviewed the Cochrane systematic reviews and overviews (published and in press) in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify additional studies (5–8) and further supplemented by hand-checking the bibliographies of all included articles. Finally, the CEP and TFP confirmed that relevant literature was included for evidence synthesis. Unless they were identified by the literature search and met the article inclusion criteria (see Appendix 3), we did not review any unpublished data from product manufacturers, investigators, or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System. We searched the literature for the eight DMARDs and nine biologics most commonly used for the treatment of RA. Literature was searched for eight DMARDS including azathioprine, cyclosporine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, organic gold compounds and sulfasalazine. As in 2008, azathioprine, cyclosporine and gold were not included in the recommendations based on infrequent use and lack of new data (Table 1). Literature was searched for nine biologics including abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab; anakinra was not included in the recommendations due to infrequent use and lack of new data. Details of the bibliographic search strategy are listed in Appendix 1.

American College of Rheumatology 2008 Recommendations for the Use of Nonbiologic and Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.

Genetics of rheumatoid arthritis contributes to biology and drug discovery

A major challenge in human genetics is to devise a systematic strategy to integrate disease-associated variants with diverse genomic and biological data sets to provide insight into disease pathogenesis and guide drug discovery for complex traits such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we performed a genome-wide association study meta-analysis in a total of >100,000 subjects of European and Asian ancestries (29,880 RA cases and 73,758 controls), by evaluating ∼10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We discovered 42 novel RA risk loci at a genome-wide level of significance, bringing the total to 101 (refs 2, 3, 4). We devised an in silico pipeline using established bioinformatics methods based on functional annotation, cis-acting expression quantitative trait loci and pathway analyses—as well as novel methods based on genetic overlap with human primary immunodeficiency, haematological cancer somatic mutations and knockout mouse phenotypes—to identify 98 biological candidate genes at these 101 risk loci. We demonstrate that these genes are the targets of approved therapies for RA, and further suggest that drugs approved for other indications may be repurposed for the treatment of RA. Together, this comprehensive genetic study sheds light on fundamental genes, pathways and cell types that contribute to RA pathogenesis, and provides empirical evidence that the genetics of RA can provide important information for drug discovery.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

A Genomewide Screen in Multiplex Rheumatoid Arthritis Families Suggests Genetic Overlap with Other Autoimmune Diseases

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune/inflammatory disorder with a complex genetic component. We report the first major genomewide screen of multiplex families with RA gathered in the United States. The North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium, using well-defined clinical criteria, has collected 257 families containing 301 affected sibling pairs with RA. A genome screen for allele sharing was performed, using 379 microsatellite markers. A nonparametric analysis using SIBPAL confirmed linkage of the HLA locus to RA (P < .00005), with lambdaHLA = 1.79. However, the analysis also revealed a number of non-HLA loci on chromosomes 1 (D1S235), 4 (D4S1647), 12 (D12S373), 16 (D16S403), and 17 (D17S1301), with evidence for linkage at a significance level of P<.005. Analysis of X-linked markers using the MLOD method from ASPEX also suggests linkage to the telomeric marker DXS6807. Stratifying the families into white or seropositive subgroups revealed some additional markers that showed improvement in significance over the full data set. Several of the regions that showed evidence for nominal significance (P < .05) in our data set had previously been implicated in RA (D16S516 and D17S1301) or in other diseases of an autoimmune nature, including systemic lupus erythematosus (D1S235), inflammatory bowel disease (D4S1647, D5S1462, and D16S516), multiple sclerosis (D12S1052), and ankylosing spondylitis (D16S516). Therefore, genes in the HLA complex play a major role in RA susceptibility, but several other regions also contribute significantly to overall genetic risk.

REL, encoding a member of the NF-B family of transcription factors, is a newly defined risk locus for rheumatoid arthritis

We conducted a genome-wide association study of rheumatoid arthritis in 2,418 cases and 4,504 controls from North America and identified an association at the REL locus, encoding c-Rel, on chromosome 2p13 (rs13031237, P = 6.01 × 10−10). Replication in independent case-control datasets comprising 2,604 cases and 2,882 controls confirmed this association, yielding an allelic OR = 1.25 (P = 3.08 × 10−14) for marker rs13031237 and an allelic OR = 1.21 (P = 2.60 × 10−11) for marker rs13017599 in the combined dataset. The combined dataset also provides definitive support for associations at both CTLA4 (rs231735; OR = 0.85; P = 6.25 × 10−9) and BLK (rs2736340; OR = 1.19; P = 5.69 × 10−9). c-Rel is an NF-κB family member with distinct functional properties in hematopoietic cells, and its association with rheumatoid arthritis suggests disease pathways that involve other recently identified rheumatoid arthritis susceptibility genes including CD40, TRAF1, TNFAIP3 and PRKCQ.

A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: The Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis trial†‡

OBJECTIVE To assess whether it is better to intensively treat all patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using combinations of drugs or to reserve this approach for patients who do not have an appropriate response (as determined by a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] of ≥ 3.2 at week 24) to methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and to assess whether combination therapy with MTX plus etanercept is superior to the combination of MTX plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine. METHODS The Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis (TEAR) study is a 2-year, randomized, double-blind trial. A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to randomly assign subjects to 1 of 4 treatment arms: immediate treatment with MTX plus etanercept, immediate oral triple therapy (MTX plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine), or step-up from MTX monotherapy to one of the combination therapies (MTX plus etanercept or MTX plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) at week 24 if the DAS28-ESR was ≥ 3.2. All treatment arms included matching placebos. The primary outcome was an observed-group analysis of DAS28-ESR values from week 48 to week 102. RESULTS At week 24 (beginning of the step-up period), subjects in the 2 immediate-treatment groups demonstrated a greater reduction in the DAS28-ESR compared with those in the 2 step-up groups (3.6 versus 4.2; P < 0.0001); no differences between the combination-therapy regimens were observed. Between week 48 and week 102, subjects randomized to the step-up arms had a DAS28-ESR clinical response that was not different from that of subjects who initially received combination therapy, regardless of the treatment arm. There was no significant difference in the DAS28-ESR between subjects randomized to oral triple therapy and those randomized to receive MTX plus etanercept. By week 102, there was a statistically significant difference in the change in radiographic measurements from baseline between the group receiving MTX plus etanercept and the group receiving oral triple therapy (0.64 versus 1.69; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION There were no differences in the mean DAS28-ESR during weeks 48-102 between subjects randomized to receive MTX plus etanercept and those randomized to triple therapy, regardless of whether they received immediate combination treatment or step-up from MTX monotherapy. At 102 weeks, immediate combination treatment with either strategy was more effective than MTX monotherapy prior to the initiation of step-up therapy. Initial use of MTX monotherapy with the addition of sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine (or etanercept, if necessary, after 6 months) is a reasonable therapeutic strategy for patients with early RA. Treatment with the combination of MTX plus etanercept resulted in a statistically significant radiographic benefit compared with oral triple therapy.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: ACR RA Treatment Recommendations

To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

A Comparison of Patient Characteristics and Outcomes in Selected European and U.S. Rheumatoid Arthritis Registries

PURPOSE Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. However, results from RCTs may not be generalizable to clinical practice because of their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessment of safety using RCT data also is limited by short duration of follow-up and relatively small sample sizes, which generally preclude analysis of longer term outcomes and rare adverse events. In rheumatology, various observational cohorts and registries have been created to complement information obtained from RCTs, some with the primary purpose of monitoring effectiveness and safety of biologic agents. Most registries are either drug based or disease based. These registries include patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases including RA. METHODS To provide a qualitative comparison of selected U.S. and European rheumatoid arthritis (RA) biologics registries and cohorts including ARTIS, BIOBADASER, BSRBR, BRASS, CLEAR, CORRONA, NDB, RABBIT, SCQM, and VARA. RESULTS A careful comparison of these registries, as provided in this article, can provide a basis for understanding the many similarities and differences inherent in their design, as well as societal context and content, all of which can significantly impact their results and comparisons across registers. SUMMARY The increasing use of biologic agents for treatment of rheumatic diseases has raised important questions about cost, safety, and effectiveness of these agents. The unique and variable features of patient populations and registry designs in Europe and the U.S. provide valuable and complementary data on comparative effectiveness and safety of biologic agents to what can be derived from RCTs.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk Allele PTPRC Is Also Associated With Response to Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha Therapy

OBJECTIVE Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) therapy is a mainstay of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of the present study was to test established RA genetic risk factors to determine whether the same alleles also influence the response to anti-TNF therapy. METHODS A total of 1,283 RA patients receiving etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab therapy were studied from among an international collaborative consortium of 9 different RA cohorts. The primary end point compared RA patients with a good treatment response according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria (n = 505) with RA patients considered to be nonresponders (n = 316). The secondary end point was the change from baseline in the level of disease activity according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (triangle upDAS28). Clinical factors such as age, sex, and concomitant medications were tested as possible correlates of treatment response. Thirty-one single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the risk of RA were genotyped and tested for any association with treatment response, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS Of the 31 RA-associated risk alleles, a SNP at the PTPRC (also known as CD45) gene locus (rs10919563) was associated with the primary end point, a EULAR good response versus no response (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, P = 0.0001 in the multivariate model). Similar results were obtained using the secondary end point, the triangle upDAS28 (P = 0.0002). There was suggestive evidence of a stronger association in autoantibody-positive patients with RA (OR 0.55, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.39-0.76) as compared with autoantibody-negative patients (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.41-1.99). CONCLUSION Statistically significant associations were observed between the response to anti-TNF therapy and an RA risk allele at the PTPRC gene locus. Additional studies will be required to replicate this finding in additional patient collections.