Obesity is a risk factor for poor response to treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis: a NORD-STAR study.

OBJECTIVE: This report from the NORD-STAR (Nordic Rheumatic Diseases Strategy Trials and Registries) trial aimed to determine if obesity is associated with response to conventional and biological antirheumatic treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This report included 793 participants with untreated early RA from the randomised, longitudinal NORD-STAR trial, all of whom had their body mass index (BMI) assessed at baseline. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥30 kg/m2. All participants were randomised 1:1:1:1 to one of four treatment arms: active conventional treatment, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept and tocilizumab. Clinical and laboratory measurements were performed at baseline and at 8, 12, 24 and 48-week follow-up. The primary endpoint for this report was response to treatment based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission and Disease Activity Score with 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2.6 stratified by BMI. RESULTS: Out of 793 people included in the present report, 161 (20%) had obesity at baseline. During follow-up, participants with baseline obesity had higher disease activity compared with those with lower BMI, despite having similar disease activity at baseline. In survival analyses, obesity was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving response to treatment during follow-up for up to 48 weeks (CDAI remission, HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; SDAI, HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97; DAS28-CRP <2.6, HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95). The effect of obesity on response to treatment was not influenced by the treatment arms. CONCLUSION: In people with untreated early RA followed up for up to 48 weeks, obesity was associated with a lower likelihood of good treatment response, irrespective of the type of randomised treatment received. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01491815.

Certolizumab pegol, abatacept, tocilizumab or active conventional treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis: 48-week clinical and radiographic results of the investigator-initiated randomised controlled NORD-STAR trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal first-line treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is debated. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of active conventional therapy with each of three biological treatments with different modes of action. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, randomised, blinded-assessor study. Patients with treatment-naïve early RA with moderate-severe disease activity were randomised 1:1:1:1 to methotrexate combined with (1) active conventional therapy: oral prednisolone (tapered quickly, discontinued at week 36) or sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints; (2) certolizumab pegol; (3) abatacept or (4) tocilizumab. Coprimary endpoints were week 48 Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission (CDAI ≤2.8) and change in radiographic van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score, estimated using logistic regression and analysis of covariance, adjusted for sex, anticitrullinated protein antibody status and country. Bonferroni's and Dunnet's procedures adjusted for multiple testing (significance level: 0.025). RESULTS: Eight hundred and twelve patients were randomised. Adjusted CDAI remission rates at week 48 were: 59.3% (abatacept), 52.3% (certolizumab), 51.9% (tocilizumab) and 39.2% (active conventional therapy). Compared with active conventional therapy, CDAI remission rates were significantly higher for abatacept (adjusted difference +20.1%, p<0.001) and certolizumab (+13.1%, p=0.021), but not for tocilizumab (+12.7%, p=0.030). Key secondary clinical outcomes were consistently better in biological groups. Radiographic progression was low, without group differences.The proportions of patients with serious adverse events were abatacept, 8.3%; certolizumab, 12.4%; tocilizumab, 9.2%; and active conventional therapy, 10.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with active conventional therapy, clinical remission rates were superior for abatacept and certolizumab pegol, but not for tocilizumab. Radiographic progression was low and similar between treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01491815.

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. SETTING: Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS: Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. RESULTS: 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS: All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

Oral ulcer associated with alendronate: a case report.

Irritation of the mucosa of the aerodigestive tract is a well-known adverse effect of alendronate, whereas oral ulceration has been reported in only 14 articles in both the English and non-English literature. All of these have been associated with misuse of the drug. We here present the first case of severe oral ulceration attributable to use of alendronate without inappropriate therapeutic administration of the medication.