Synovial membrane cytokine expression is predictive of joint damage progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a two-year prospective study (the DAMAGE study cohort).

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this prospective 2-year study was to explain the wide variability in joint damage progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from measures of pathologic changes in the synovial membrane. METHODS: Patients underwent clinical measurements and joint damage assessments by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiography at enrollment and at year 2. Synovial membrane was obtained by knee biopsy and assessed histologically by hematoxylin and eosin staining. Interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), IL-10, IL-16, IL-17, RANKL, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha), and interferon-gamma (IFNgamma) messenger RNA (mRNA) expression was determined by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. The relationship of synovial measurements to joint damage progression was determined by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled. Histologic features had no relationship to damage progression. Multivariate analysis by several different methods consistently demonstrated that synovial membrane mRNA levels of IL-1beta, TNFalpha, IL-17, and IL-10 were predictive of damage progression. IL-17 was synergistic with TNFalpha. TNFalpha and IL-17 effects were most pronounced with shorter disease duration, and IL-1beta effects were most pronounced with longer disease duration. IFNgamma was protective. These factors explained 57% of the MRI joint damage progression over 2 years. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated for the first time in a prospective study that synovial membrane cytokine mRNA expression is predictive of joint damage progression in RA. The findings for IL-1beta and TNFalpha are consistent with results of previous clinical research, but the protective role of IFNgamma, the differing effects of disease duration, and IL-17-cytokine interactions had only been demonstrated previously by animal and in vitro research. These findings explain some of the variability of joint damage in RA and identify new targets for therapy.

Magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis advances and research priorities.

This article updates the work and results of the OMERACT MRI in RA Working Group as presented at the OMERACT 7 meeting in May 2004, focusing on the development of the EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging reference image atlas, and on areas for future research.

The evidence for magnetic resonance imaging as an outcome measure in proof-of-concept rheumatoid arthritis studies.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has now been used extensively in cross-sectional and observational studies as well as in controlled clinical trials to assess disease activity and joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). MRI measurements or scores for erosions, bone edema, and synovitis have been developed and validated by several groups. The OMERACT criteria require that outcome measures demonstrate adequate validity, discriminative power, and feasibility if they are to be useful in clinical trials. Specific performance targets for these criteria depend on the scientific, regulatory, logistical, and financial context of the study in question. We review the extent to which MRI assessments of joint erosion, bone edema, and synovitis fulfil these criteria, particularly as they relate to proof-of-concept RA clinical trials.

Generic patient self-report and investigator report instruments of therapeutic safety and tolerability.

A patient self-report instrument was designed as a patient event index that maps to a parallel investigator instrument. Event importance (a composite of severity, frequency, and duration) was reported, but attribution was not required. The patient instrument used a checklist but also allowed for spontaneous reporting for new or unusual events. The investigator instrument (also a checklist) includes all events reported by the patient, as well as events such as signs, investigations, and diagnoses that would not generally be known to the patient. Presently, both patient and investigator instruments are to be used alongside current methods of adverse event reporting in clinical trials. The patient instrument would serve as a safety/tolerability index, whereas the investigator instrument would be a fully quantifiable (appropriately weighted), standardized adverse event index. As in many methodological projects in medicine, the overriding problem was the tradeoff between validity (comprehensiveness and accuracy) and feasibility (clarity and short administration time) in instrument development. A summary of pilot studies and results of instrument reliability and validity are presented.

The road to consensus: considerations for the safe use and prescribing of COX-2-specific inhibitors.

We describe a process which aimed to achieve consensus on evidence-based considerations for the safe prescribing and use of the COX-2-specific inhibitors available in Australia among a group of 31 clinicians and other health professionals, drawn from practice, academia and industry. Difficulties were encountered at several points: the composition of the working group was contentious; the evidence, drawn from large clinical studies, was criticised by some for problems of study design, data analysis and reporting; interpretation of study results was influenced by the interpreter's knowledge, skills and biases; and the formulation of the "Considerations" became more controversial as summary statements were contracted and simplified. Agreement on the final draft was achieved among 23 of 31 participants. Evidence-based practice guidelines are a welcome development in modern medicine, but the consensus required to produce them can mask important diversity of opinion.