Prevalence of cardiovascular disease and major risk factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a multinational cross-sectional study.

To compare the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and major CVD risk factors among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients enrolled in a large US and multinational registry. We compared CVD and CVD risk factor prevalence from 11 countries enrolled in the CORRONA US and CORRONA International registries; patients from the 10 ex-US participating countries were grouped by region (Eastern Europe, Latin America, and India). Unadjusted summary data were presented for demographics and disease characteristics; comparisons for prevalence of CVD risk factors and CVD were age/gender standardized to the age/gender distribution of the US enrolled patients. Overall, 25,987 patients were included in this analysis. Compared to patients from the ex-US regions, US participants had longer disease duration and lower disease activity, yet were more likely to receive a biologic agent. Additionally, CORRONA US participants had the highest body mass index (BMI). Enrolled patients in India had the lowest BMI, were more rarely smokers, and had a low prevalence of hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and prior CVD compared to the US and other ex-US regions. Participants from Eastern Europe had a higher prevalence of hypertension and hyperlipidemia and highest prevalence of all manifestations of CVD. Differences in the prevalence of both CVD and major CVD risk factors were observed across the four regions investigated. Observed differences may be influenced by variations in both non-modifiable/modifiable characteristics of patient populations, and may contribute to heterogeneity on the observed safety of investigational and approved therapies in studies involving RA patients from different origins.

Infection rates in patients from five rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries: contextualising an RA clinical trial programme.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of serious infections. Comparing infection rates across RA populations is complicated by differences in background infection risk, population composition and study methodology. We measured infection rates from five RA registries globally, with the aim to contextualise infection rates from an RA clinical trials population. METHODS: We used data from Consortium of Rheumatology Research of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (UK), CORRONA International (multiple countries) and Institute of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis (Japan) and an RA clinical trial programme (fostamatinib). Within each registry, we analysed a main cohort of all patients with RA from January 2000 to last available data. Infection definitions were harmonised across registries. Sensitivity analyses to address potential confounding explored subcohorts defined by disease activity, treatment change and/or prior comorbidities and restriction by calendar time or follow-up. Rates of infections were estimated and standardised to the trial population for age/sex and, in one sensitivity analysis also, for Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score. RESULTS: Overall, age/sex-standardised rates of hospitalised infection were quite consistent across registries (range 1.14-1.62 per 100 patient-years). Higher and more consistent rates across registries and with the trial programme overall were seen when adding standardisation for HAQ score (registry range 1.86-2.18, trials rate 2.92) or restricting to a treatment initiation subcohort followed for 18 months (registry range 0.99-2.84, trials rate 2.74). CONCLUSION: This prospective, coordinated analysis of RA registries provided incidence rate estimates for infection events to contextualise infection rates from an RA clinical trial programme and demonstrated relative comparability of hospitalised infection rates across registries.

Evaluation of non-contrast MRI biomarkers in lupus nephritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of novel non-contrast MRI biomarkers with standard measurements of renal function and renal disease activity in lupus. METHODS: A pilot study of lupus nephritis (LN) and lupus non-nephritis (LNN) patients, and healthy volunteers (HV), was undertaken. Multi-modal renal MRI was performed including sequences for arterial spin labelling (ASL) measuring blood flow, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), measuring microstructural disruption, and effective transverse relaxation time (T2*) which is a biomarker of micro-haemorrhage. MRI measurements were compared with urinary protein creatinine ratio (uPCR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurements in the whole study population, then differences in imaging measurements between the groups were explored. RESULTS: 21 patients (6 LN, 8 LNN and 7 HV) completed the study, although ASL data were not available in 4 subjects. In the whole cohort, eGFR correlated significantly with the apparent diffusion coefficient measurement from DTI in the medulla (r=0.47, p=0.03). uPCR correlated strongly with the fractional anisotropy (FA) DTI measurement in the cortex and moderately with T2* measurements (rho=-0.71, p<0.001 and rho=-0.53, p=0.013, respectively). Delayed blood flow to the medulla was found in LN subjects and there was a trend towards lower FA values in the cortex, suggesting micro-structural disruption (p=0.04 and p=0.07, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrates that non-contrast renal MRI biomarkers are associated with standard measures of disease activity in lupus. The potential utility of these non-invasive biomarkers warrants further investigation, as there is an unmet need for reliable biomarkers of disease activity in lupus nephritis.

Repeatability and response to therapy of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers in rheumatoid arthritis in a large multicentre trial setting.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the repeatability and response to therapy of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI biomarkers of synovitis in the hand and wrist of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, and in particular the performance of the transfer constant K trans , in a multicentre trial setting. METHODS: DCE-MRI and RA MRI scoring (RAMRIS) were performed with meticulous standardisation at baseline and 6 and 24 weeks in a substudy of fostamatinib monotherapy in reducing synovitis compared with placebo or adalimumab. Analysis employed statistical shape modelling to avoid biased regions-of-interest, kinetic modelling and heuristic analyses. Repeatability was also evaluated. RESULTS: At early study termination, DCE-MRI data had been acquired from 58 patients in 19 imaging centres. K trans intra-subject coefficient of variation (N = 14) was 30%. K trans change demonstrated inferiority of fostamatinib (N = 11) relative to adalimumab (N = 10) after 6 weeks (treatment ratio = 1.92, p = 0.003), and failed to distinguish fostamatinib from placebo (N = 10, p = 0.79). RAMRIS showed superiority of fostamatinib relative to placebo at 6 weeks (p = 0.023), and did not distinguish fostamatinib from adalimumab at either 6 (p = 0.175) or 24 (p = 0.230) weeks. CONCLUSION: This demonstrated repeatability of K trans and its ability to distinguish treatment groups show that DCE-MRI biomarkers are suitable for use in multicentre RA trials. KEY POINTS: • DCE-MRI biomarkers are feasible in large multicentre studies of joint inflammation. • DCE-MRI K trans showed fostamatinib inferior to adalimumab after 6 weeks. • K trans repeatability coefficient of variation was 30% multicentre.

Linear extrapolation of missing radiographic change scores in clinical trials does not spuriously overestimate group radiographic changes in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess linear extrapolation (LE) and last observation carried forward (LOCF) as imputation methods for radiographic change in patients with RA. METHODS: The OSKIRA-1 trial enrolled 918 patients with active RA for studying the efficacy of fostamatinib. Radiographs were scheduled for all patients at baseline and week 12, regardless of early escape, and at weeks 24 and 52 for patients who remained in the study. Complete radiographic data for the 24-week follow-up were available for 623 patients and were assessed according to the Sharp/van der Heijde score. From this complete set of data, a random selection of 10% missingness was generated. This was done 1000 times, and for each replicate the missing radiographic change at week 24 was imputed, first by LE, then by LOCF. The mean of the mean and mean of the s.d. across the 1000 replications was calculated. A similar approach was iterated for different proportions of missingness. RESULTS: The mean (s.d.) observed Sharp/van der Heijde score change from baseline to week 24 was 0.36 (2.39). With LE, the mean (s.d.) change was estimated as 0.36 (2.65), 0.35 (2.88), 0.35 (3.17), 0.34 (3.57) and 0.32 (4.45) with 10/20/30/50/90% missingness, respectively. With LOCF, the mean (s.d.) change was estimated as 0.34 (2.39), 0.32 (2.38), 0.30 (2.37), 0.26 (2.36) and 0.18 (2.34) with 10/20/30/50/90% missingness, respectively. CONCLUSION: LE led to stable estimates of progression at the group level, but increasing variability with increasing proportions of missingness. In contrast, LOCF imputation systemically underestimated mean progression with increasing proportions of missingness, with artificially reduced variability estimates.

Can rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries provide contextual safety data for modern RA clinical trials? The case for mortality and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a novel method for providing contextual adverse event rates for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme through coordinated analyses of five RA registries, focusing here on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. METHODS: Each participating registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (SRR) (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) (UK), CORRONA International (East Europe, Latin America, India) and Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) (Japan)) defined a main cohort from January 2000 onwards. To address comparability and potential bias, we harmonised event definitions and defined several subcohorts for sensitivity analyses based on disease activity, treatment, calendar time, duration of follow-up and RCT exclusions. Rates were standardised for age, sex and, in one sensitivity analysis, also HAQ. RESULTS: The combined registry cohorts included 57 251 patients with RA (234 089 person-years)-24.5% men, mean (SD) baseline age 58.2 (13.8) and RA duration 8.2 (11.7) years. Standardised registry mortality rates (per 100 person-years) varied from 0.42 (CORRONA) to 0.80 (NOAR), with 0.60 for RCT patients. Myocardial infarction and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates ranged from 0.09 and 0.31 (IORRA) to 0.39 and 0.77 (SRR), with RCT rates intermediate (0.18 and 0.42), respectively. Additional subcohort analyses showed small and mostly consistent changes across registries, retaining reasonable consistency in rates across the Western registries. Additional standardisation for HAQ returned higher mortality and MACE registry rates. CONCLUSIONS: This coordinated approach to contextualising RA RCT safety data demonstrated reasonable differences and consistency in rates for mortality and CVD across registries, and comparable RCT rates, and may serve as a model method to supplement clinical trial analyses for drug development programmes.

Quantitative power Doppler ultrasound measures of peripheral joint synovitis in poor prognosis early rheumatoid arthritis predict radiographic progression.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of quantitative vascular imaging by power Doppler US (PDUS) as a tool that can be used to stratify patient risk of joint damage in early seropositive RA while still biologic naive but on synthetic DMARD treatment. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with seropositive RA of <3 years duration had clinical, laboratory and imaging assessments at 0 and 12 months. Imaging assessments consisted of radiographs of the hands and feet, two-dimensional (2D) high-frequency and PDUS imaging of 10 MCP joints that were scored for erosions and vascularity and three-dimensional (3D) PDUS of MCP joints and wrists that were scored for vascularity. RESULTS: Severe deterioration on radiographs and ultrasonography was seen in 45 and 28% of patients, respectively. The 3D power Doppler volume and 2D vascularity scores were the most useful US predictors of deterioration. These variables were modelled in two equations that estimate structural damage over 12 months. The equations had a sensitivity of 63.2% and specificity of 80.9% for predicting radiographic structural damage and a sensitivity of 54.2% and specificity of 96.7% for predicting structural damage on ultrasonography. CONCLUSION: In seropositive early RA, quantitative vascular imaging by PDUS has clinical utility in predicting which patients will derive benefit from early use of biologic therapy.

How comparable are rates of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis across the world? A comparison of cancer rates, and means to optimise their comparability, in five RA registries.

BACKGROUND: The overall incidence of cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is modestly elevated. The extent to which cancer rates in RA vary across clinical cohorts and patient subsets, as defined by disease activity or treatment is less known but critical for understanding the safety of existing and new antirheumatic therapies. We investigated comparability of, and means to harmonise, malignancy rates in five RA registries from four continents. METHODS: Participating RA registries were Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (SRR) (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) (UK), CORRONA International (several countries) and Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) (Japan). Within each registry, we analysed a main cohort of all patients with RA from January 2000 to last available data, and sensitivity analyses of sub-cohorts defined by disease activity, treatment change, prior comorbidities and restricted by calendar time or follow-up, respectively. Malignancy rates with 95% CIs were estimated, and standardised for age and sex, based on the distributions from a typical RA clinical trial programme population (fostamatinib). RESULTS: There was a high consistency in rates for overall malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), for malignant lymphomas, but not for all skin cancers, across registries, in particular following age/sex standardisation. Standardised rates of overall malignancy excluding NMSC varied from 0.56 to 0.87 per 100 person-years. Within each registry, rates were generally consistent across sensitivity analyses, which differed little from the main analysis. CONCLUSION: In real-world RA populations, rates of both overall malignancy and of lymphomas are consistent.

Using epidemiological registry data to provide background rates as context for adverse events in a rheumatoid arthritis drug development program: a coordinated approach.

PURPOSE: Observational studies can provide context for adverse events observed in clinical trials, especially for infrequent events or long-term risks. We developed methods to improve safety contextualization for a rheumatoid arthritis drug development program through coordinated analyses of multiple registries. METHODS: We identified and characterized differences and similarities across five registries (Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America [CORRONA], Norfolk Arthritis Register, Institute of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis, and the new CORRONA International), harmonized outcome definitions, and investigated whether restricted subcohorts improved comparability with trial populations. To address confounding, we identified risk predictors for outcomes of interest (mortality, cardiovascular disease, infection, and malignancy). We used patient-level analyses at each registry and central analysis of standardized group-level data. RESULTS: Despite data differences, the coordinated approach enabled consistent variable definitions for key baseline characteristics and outcomes. Selection of restricted subcohorts (e.g., using active joint count criteria) improved baseline comparability with trial patients for some rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures, but less for other characteristics (e.g., age and comorbidity); however, such selection decreased sample size considerably. For most outcomes, age was the most important risk predictor, emphasizing the importance of age/sex standardization to address confounding. The prospective approach enabled use of recent relevant data; the distributed analysis safeguarded confidentiality of registry data. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with reliance on published data alone, a forward-looking coordinated approach across multiple observational data sources can improve comparability and consistency and better support sensitivity analyses and data interpretation, in contextualizing safety data from clinical trials. This approach may have utility to support safety assessments across diverse diseases and drug development programs and satisfy future regulatory requirements.

Methodological Challenges When Comparing Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of International Observational Registries.

OBJECTIVE: Comparisons of data from different registries can be helpful in understanding variations in many aspects of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study aim was to assess and improve the comparability of demographic, clinical, and comorbidity data from 5 international RA registries. METHODS: Using predefined definitions, 2 subsets of patients (main cohort and subcohort) from 5 international observational registries (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Registry [CORRONA], the Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register [SRR], the Norfolk Arthritis Register [NOAR], the Institute of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis cohort [IORRA], and CORRONA International) were evaluated and compared. Patients ages >18 years with RA, and present in or recruited to the registry from January 1, 2000, were included in the main cohort. Patients from the main cohort with positive rheumatoid factor and/or erosive RA who had received ≥1 synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), and switched to or added another DMARD, were included in the subcohort at time of treatment switch. RESULTS: Age and sex distributions were fairly similar across the registries. The percentage of patients with a high Disease Activity Score in 28 joints score varied between main cohorts (17.5% IORRA, 18.9% CORRONA, 24.7% NOAR, 27.7% CORRONA International, and 36.8% SRR), with IORRA, CORRONA, and CORRONA International including more prevalent cases of RA; the differences were smaller for the subcohort. Prevalence of comorbidities varied across registries (e.g., coronary artery disease ranged from 1.5% in IORRA to 7.9% in SRR), partly due to the way comorbidity data were captured and general cultural differences; the pattern was similar for the subcohorts. CONCLUSION: Despite different inclusion criteria for the individual RA registries, it is possible to improve the comparability and interpretability of differences across RA registries by applying well-defined cohort definitions.

OSKIRA-4: a phase IIb randomised, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of fostamatinib monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: OSKIRA-4 evaluated the efficacy of fostamatinib monotherapy versus placebo on the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis over 6 weeks by Disease Activity Score C reactive protein (DAS-28(CRP)) and assessed non-inferiority to adalimumab monotherapy at Week 24 by DAS-28(CRP). METHODS: Overall, 279 patients not currently taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomised to: (A) fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 24 weeks plus placebo injection every 2 weeks (PBOI); (B) fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, then 150 mg once daily up to Week 24, plus PBOI; (C) fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, then 100 mg once daily up to Week 24, plus PBOI; (D) adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, plus oral placebo twice daily; or (E) oral placebo twice daily for 6 weeks, plus PBOI, then a switch to arm A or B. RESULTS: Fostamatinib demonstrated a significant improvement in DAS-28(CRP) score from baseline versus placebo at Week 6 for arms A and B, but not C. Fostamatinib was significantly less effective than adalimumab at Week 24 based on DAS-28(CRP). Adverse events observed with fostamatinib treatment were consistent with those reported in previous studies, including hypertension and diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: Fostamatinib demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy, showing superior DAS-28(CRP) score changes between baseline and 6 weeks when compared with placebo in treatment arms A and B. However, all fostamatinib regimens demonstrated inferior responses compared with adalimumab at Week 24. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01264770.

Effects of fostamatinib, an oral spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate: results from a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

OBJECTIVE: This phase III, 52-week study compared fostamatinib with placebo (for 24 weeks) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: Patients taking MTX were randomized (1:1:1) to receive fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 52 weeks (group A), fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks and then 150 mg once daily (group B), or placebo for 24 weeks and then fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily (group C). At week 24, the co-primary end points were change from baseline in the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response rates and change in the modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score of radiographic damage (SHS). RESULTS: In this study, 918 patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study drug (fostamatinib or placebo); the demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced. Following treatment with both fostamatinib regimens, a statistically significant difference in the ACR20 improvement response was achieved at week 24 as compared with that in patients receiving placebo (49.0% [group A] and 44.4%, [group B] versus 34.2%; P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively), but there was no statistically significant difference in the SHS between either fostamatinib group and placebo (P = 0.25 and P = 0.17, respectively). The most common adverse events in patients in groups A, B, and C were hypertension (15.8%, 15.1%, and 3.9%, respectively) and diarrhea (13.9%, 15.1%, and 3.9%, respectively). Elevated blood pressure (≥140/90 mm Hg) occurred at ≥1 visit in 44.2%, 41.6%, and 19.3% of patients in each respective group. CONCLUSION: With the use of either fostamatinib regimen in patients with RA, statistically significant, but not clinically significant, improvements in the ACR20 improvement response over placebo were achieved at 24 weeks, whereas a significant difference in the SHS was not seen. The overall level of response to treatment with fostamatinib was lower than had been observed in the phase II program, but similar adverse events were reported.