Profiling microRNAs in individuals at risk of progression to rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) demonstrate systemic autoimmunity in the form of anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA). MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are implicated in established RA. This study aimed to (1) compare miRNA expression between healthy individuals and those at risk of and those that develop RA, (2) evaluate the change in expression of miRNA from "at-risk" to early RA and (3) explore whether these miRNAs could inform a signature predictive of progression from "at-risk" to RA. METHODS: We performed global profiling of 754 miRNAs per patient on a matched serum sample cohort of 12 anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) + "at-risk" individuals that progressed to RA. Each individual had a serum sample from baseline and at time of detection of synovitis, forming the matched element. Healthy controls were also studied. miRNAs with a fold difference/fold change of four in expression level met our primary criterion for selection as candidate miRNAs. Validation of the miRNAs of interest was conducted using custom miRNA array cards on matched samples (baseline and follow up) in 24 CCP+ individuals; 12 RA progressors and 12 RA non-progressors. RESULTS: We report on the first study to use matched serum samples and a comprehensive miRNA array approach to identify in particular, three miRNAs (miR-22, miR-486-3p, and miR-382) associated with progression from systemic autoimmunity to RA inflammation. MiR-22 demonstrated significant fold difference between progressors and non-progressors indicating a potential biomarker role for at-risk individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This first study using a cohort with matched serum samples provides important mechanistic insights in the transition from systemic autoimmunity to inflammatory disease for future investigation, and with further evaluation, might also serve as a predictive biomarker.

Predicting the development of clinical arthritis in anti-CCP positive individuals with non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms: a prospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To monitor progression to inflammatory arthritis (IA) in individuals with non-specific musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms and positive anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies. To develop a pragmatic model to predict development of IA in this patient group. METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort, patients with new non-specific MSK symptoms and positive anti-CCP were recruited from regional primary care and secondary care referrals. Clinical, imaging and serological parameters were assessed at baseline. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of progression to IA and develop a risk score to stratify patients at presentation. FINDINGS: 100 consecutive patients (73 women, mean age 51 years) were followed up for median 19.8 months (range 0.1-69.0); 50 developed IA after a median 7.9 months (range 0.1-52.4), 34 within 12 months. The majority (43/50) fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. A model for progression to IA was devised using four variables: tenderness of hand or foot joints, early morning stiffness ≥30 min, high-positive autoantibodies, and positive ultrasonographic power Doppler signal. None of the five individuals at low risk (score 0) progressed to IA, compared with 31% of 29 at moderate risk (1-2) and 62% of 66 at high risk (≥3). Adding shared epitope increased the number at low risk (score 0-1; 0/11 progressed). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with non-specific MSK symptoms and anti-CCP, the risk of progression to IA could be quantified using data available in clinical practice. The proposed risk score may be used to stratify patients for early therapeutic intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02012764 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

A randomised controlled trial of etanercept and methotrexate to induce remission in early inflammatory arthritis: the EMPIRE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of etanercept (ETN) and methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy for remission induction in patients with early inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: In a 78-week multicentre randomised placebo-controlled superiority trial, 110 DMARD-naïve patients with early clinical synovitis (≥1 tender and swollen joint, and within 3 months of diagnosis) and either rheumatoid factor, anticitrullinated protein antibodies or shared epitope positive were randomised 1:1 to receive MTX+ETN or MTX+placebo (PBO) for 52 weeks. Injections (ETN or PBO) were stopped in all patients at week 52. In those with no tender or swollen joints (NTSJ) for >26 weeks, injections were stopped early. If patients had NTSJ >12 weeks after stopping the injections, MTX was weaned. The primary endpoint was NTSJ at week 52. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was seen for the primary endpoint (NTSJ at week 52 (32.5% vs 28.1% [adjusted OR 1.32 (0.56 to 3.09), p=0.522]) in the MTX+ETN and MTX+PBO groups, respectively). The secondary endpoints did not differ between groups at week 52 or 78. Exploratory analyses showed a higher proportions of patients with DAS28-CRP<2.6 in the MTX+ETN group at week 2 (38.5% vs 9.2%, adjusted OR 8.87 (2.53 to 31.17), p=0.001) and week 12 (65.1% vs 43.8%, adjusted OR 2.49 (1.12 to 5.54), p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients with early inflammatory arthritis, almost a third had no tender, swollen joints after 1 year. MTX+ETN was not superior to MTX monotherapy in achieving this outcome. Clinical responses, however, including DAS28-CRP<2.6, were achieved earlier with MTX+ETN combination therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The EMPIRE trial is registered on the following trial registries: Eudract-2005-005467-29; ISRCTN 55428162 (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN55428162/EMPIRE). The full trial protocol can be obtained from the corresponding author.

Remission induction comparing infliximab and high-dose intravenous steroid, followed by treat-to-target: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial in new-onset, treatment-naive, rheumatoid arthritis (the IDEA study).

OBJECTIVES: In disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), to compare the efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) and infliximab (IFX) with MTX and intravenous corticosteroid for remission induction. METHODS: In a 78-week multicentre randomised controlled trial, double-blinded to week 26, 112 treatment-naive RA patients (1987 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria) with disease activity score 44 (DAS44)>2.4 were randomised to MTX + IFX or MTX + single dose intravenous methylprednisolone 250 mg. A treat-to-target approach was used with treatment escalation if DAS44>2.4. In the IFX group, IFX was discontinued for sustained remission (DAS44<1.6 for 6 months). The primary outcome was change in modified total Sharp-van der Heijde score (mTSS) at week 50. RESULTS: The mean changes in mTSS score at week 50 in the IFX and intravenous steroid groups were 1.20 units and 2.81 units, respectively (adjusted difference (95% CI) -1.45 (-3.35 to 0.45); p=0.132). Radiographic non-progression (mTSS<2.0) occurred in 81% vs 71% (OR 1.77 (0.56 to 5.61); p=0.328). DAS44 remission was achieved at week 50 in 49% and 36% (OR 2.13 (0.91 to 5.00); p=0.082), and at week 78 in 48% and 50% (OR 1.12 (0.47 to 2.68); p=0.792). Exploratory analyses suggested higher DAS28 remission at week 6 and less ultrasound synovitis at week 50 in the IFX group. Of the IFX group, 25% (14/55) achieved sustained remission and stopped IFX. No substantive differences in adverse events were seen. CONCLUSIONS: In DMARD-naive early RA patients, initial therapy with MTX+high-dose intravenous steroid resulted in good disease control with little structural damage. MTX+IFX was not statistically superior to MTX+intravenous steroid when combined with a treat-to-target approach.

Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of RA.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of biological agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide data to develop treatment recommendations by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles on infliximab (IFX), etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab-pegol (CZP), golimumab (GLM), anakinra (ANA), abatacept (ABT), rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) published between 1962 and February 2009; published abstracts from the 2007-2008 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR conference were obtained. RESULTS: 87 articles and 40 abstracts were identified. In methotrexate (MTX) naïve patients, biological therapy with IFX, ETN, ADA, GLM or ABT has been shown to improve clinical outcomes (level of evidence 1B). In MTX/other synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) failures all nine biological agents confer benefit (1B), with lower efficacy noted for ANA. RTX, ABT, TCZ and GLM demonstrate efficacy in tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) failures (1B). Less evidence exists for switching between IFX, ETN and ADA (3B). Biological and MTX combination therapy is more efficacious than a biological agent alone (1B). A safety review shows no increased malignancy risk compared with conventional DMARDs (3B). TNFi are generally associated with an increased risk of serious bacterial infection, particularly within the first 6 months of treatment initiation; increased tuberculosis (TB) rates with TNFi are highest with the monoclonal antibodies (3B). CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence for the efficacy of biological agents in patients with RA. Safety data confirm an increased risk of bacterial infection and TB with TNFi compared with conventional DMARDs.