Exploring the differences between radiographic joint space width and MRI cartilage thickness changes using data from the IMI-APPROACH cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Longitudinal weight-bearing radiographic joint space width (JSW) and non-weight-bearing MRI-based cartilage thickness changes often show weak correlations. The current objective was to investigate these correlations, and to explore the influence of different factors that could contribute to longitudinal differences between the two methods. METHODS: The current study included 178 participants with medial osteoarthritis (OA) out of the 297 knee OA participants enrolled in the IMI-APPROACH cohort. Changes over 2 years in medial JSW (ΔJSWmed), minimum JSW (ΔJSWmin), and medial femorotibial cartilage thickness (ΔMFTC) were assessed using linear regression, using measurements from radiographs and MRI acquired at baseline, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years. Pearson R correlations were calculated. The influence of cartilage quality (T2 mapping), meniscal extrusion (MOAKS scoring), potential pain-induced unloading (difference in knee-specific pain scores), and increased loading (BMI) on the correlations was analyzed by dividing participants in groups based on each factor separately, and comparing correlations (slope and strength) between groups using linear regression models. RESULT: Correlations between ΔMFTC and ΔJSWmed and ΔJSWmin were statistically significant (p < 0.004) but weak (R < 0.35). Correlations were significantly different between groups based on cartilage quality and on meniscal extrusion: only patients with the lowest T2 values and with meniscal extrusion showed significant moderate correlations. Pain-induced unloading or BMI-induced loading did not influence correlations. CONCLUSIONS: While the amount of loading does not seem to make a difference, weight-bearing radiographic JSW changes are a better reflection of non-weight-bearing MRI cartilage thickness changes in knees with higher quality cartilage and with meniscal extrusion.

Making the patient voice heard in a research consortium: experiences from an EU project (IMI-APPROACH).

APPROACH is an EU-wide research consortium with the goal to identify different subgroups of knee osteoarthritis to enable future differential diagnosis and treatment. During a 2-year clinical study images, biomarkers and clinical data are collected from people living with knee osteoarthritis and data are analyzed to confirm patterns that can indicate such different subgroups. A Patient Council (PC) has been set up at project initiation and consists of five people from Norway, The Netherlands and UK. Initially, this group of individuals had to learn how to effectively work with each other and with the researchers. Today, the PC is a strong team that is fully integrated in the consortium and acknowledged by researchers as an important sounding board. The article describes this journey looking at formal processes of involvement - organizational structure, budget, meetings - and more informal processes such as building relationships and changing researcher perceptions. It describes how the PC helped improve the experience and engagement of study participants by providing input to the clinical protocol and ensuring effective communication (e.g. through direct interactions with participants and newsletters). Furthermore, the PC is helping with dissemination of results and project advocacy, and overall provides the patient perspective to researchers. Additionally, the authors experienced and describe the intangible benefits such as a shift in researcher attitudes and a sense of community and purpose for PC members. Importantly, learnings reported in this article also include the challenges, such as effective integration of the PC with researchers' work in the early phase of the project. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Library of Medicine, NCT03883568 , retrospectively registered 21 March 2019.

This article describes the activities and lessons learned from the involvement of a Patient Council in APPROACH, a 5-year European clinical research project focusing on osteoarthritis, the most common form of joint disease. The Patient Council is a group of five people from different EU countries who live with osteoarthritis. They use their knowledge of life with the disease and their own past experience as participants in clinical studies to help improve the experience of people who participate in the APPROACH clinical study. In addition, they provide the overall patient perspective to the researchers within the project.When the project started, the Patient Council was a group of individuals who didn't know each other. They had to find a way to work together with each other as a team, and with the researchers to ensure their involvement was integrated effectively into the project. The authors (current members of the Patient Council and other selected project members) describe in this article what was needed to successfully work together, the process of becoming fully engaged and involved and describe the impact that their activities have made on the clinical study during the project and beyond. They share their lessons learned with the goal to help other research projects to integrate the patient perspective effectively, and to encourage people living with a medical condition to share their experience with researchers through patient involvement activities.

Relationship between motion, using the GaitSmartTM system, and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: an explorative analysis in the IMI-APPROACH cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To assess underlying domains measured by GaitSmartTMparameters and whether these are additional to established OA markers including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic parameters, and to evaluate if GaitSmart analysis is related to the presence and severity of radiographic knee OA. METHODS: GaitSmart analysis was performed during baseline visits of participants of the APPROACH cohort (n = 297). Principal component analyses (PCA) were performed to explore structure in relationships between GaitSmart parameters alone and in addition to radiographic parameters and PROMs. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to analyse the relationship of GaitSmart with the presence (Kellgren and Lawrence grade ≥2 in at least one knee) and severity of radiographic OA (ROA). RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-four successful GaitSmart analyses were performed. The PCA identified five underlying GaitSmart domains. Radiographic parameters and PROMs formed additional domains indicating that GaitSmart largely measures separate concepts. Several GaitSmart domains were related to the presence of ROA as well as the severity of joint damage in addition to demographics and PROMs with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.724 and explained variances (adjusted R2) of 0.107, 0.132 and 0.147 for minimum joint space width, osteophyte area and mean subchondral bone density, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: GaitSmart analysis provides additional information over established OA outcomes. GaitSmart parameters are also associated with the presence of ROA and extent of radiographic severity over demographics and PROMS. These results indicate that GaitsmartTM may be an additional outcome measure for the evaluation of OA.

Tocilizumab as monotherapy or combination therapy for treating active rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety reported in randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have shown that switching to tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy (TCZMONO) or combination therapy (TCZCOMBI) with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) is efficacious in reducing disease activity in patients with inadequate response to csDMARDs. However, hitherto there is no consensus on whether TCZMONO is as effective as TCZCOMBI. The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCZMONO versus add-on TCZCOMBI and both TCZ therapies versus continuing the current csDMARD therapy, by performing a systematic review and meta-analyses. METHOD: The MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched until February 2016 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed meta-analyses of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28 < 2.6), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) to compare the three different strategies, whereas a random-effect model was used for pooling relative risks (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed for evaluating differences in study duration. RESULTS: In total, 13 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 6679 patients. When comparing both TCZ strategies, a marginally greater proportion of patients achieving DAS28 < 2.6 (RR 1.21; 95 % CI 1.09, 1.36) and ACR50 response (RR 1.14; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.26) was found in favor of the TCZCOMBI strategy. However, the risk of SAEs was also significantly higher using this strategy (RR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.92, p = 0.03). Pooled effect estimates showed statistical superiority of switching to either TCZ strategy compared to continuing csDMARD therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of active RA, almost similar efficacy can be expected in patients unable to tolerate csDMARDs, who switch to TCZMONO compared to inadequate responders switching to add-on TCZCOMBI. Although TCZCOMBI is marginally superior to TCZMONO in achieving DAS28 < 2.6 and ACR50 response, this is at the cost of an increased risk of SAEs.

Does disease activity add to functional disability in estimation of utility for rheumatoid arthritis patients on biologic treatment?

OBJECTIVE: Treatment in general is mostly directly aimed at disease activity, and measures such as the DAS28 might therefore present important additional information. Our aim was to develop and validate a model that uses a combination of disease activity (DAS28) and HAQs to estimate EuroQoL 5-dimension scale (EQ5D) utilities. METHODS: Longitudinal data from a cohort study in RA patients from the Utrecht Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort study Group (Stichting Reumaonderzoek Utrecht) who started treatment with a biologic drug were used for mapping and validation. All 702 observations, including DAS28, HAQ and EQ5D assessed at the same time points, were used. The observations were randomly divided into a subset for development of the model (n = 428 observations) and a subset for validation (n = 274). A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was used to test the association of DAS28 (components) and HAQ (domains) with EQ5D. Model performance was assessed using the explained variance (R(2)) and root mean square errors. Observed and predicted utility scores were compared to check for under- or overestimation of the scores. Finally, the performance of the model was compared with published mapping models. RESULTS: Lower DAS28 score and HAQ items dressing and grooming, arising, eating, walking and activities were associated with higher EQ5D scores. The final model had an explained variance of 0.35 and a lower root mean square error as compared with other models tested. The agreement between predicted and observed scores was fair. CONCLUSION: HAQ components estimate EQ5D better than total HAQ. Adding DAS28 to HAQ components does not result in better utility estimations.