| Literature DB >> 29787569 |
Martin Andersen1,2, Mikael Boesen3, Karen Ellegaard1, Kalle Söderström2, Niels H Søe4, Pieter Spee2, Ulrik G W Mørch5, Søren Torp-Pedersen1, Else M Bartels1, Bente Danneskiold-Samsøe1, Lars Karlsson2, Henning Bliddal1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The need for biomarkers which can predict disease course and treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is evident. We explored whether clinical and imaging responses to biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment (bDMARD) were associated with the individual's mediator production in explants obtained at baseline.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29787569 PMCID: PMC5963776 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flowchart outlining flow of patients, number of joints synovectomised and number of established synovial cultures.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients with clinically suspected active arthritis involving the hand joints and opted for bDMARD treatment were evaluated by Doppler ultrasound for study participation. Explants were only included from patients, who were initiated in bDMARD treatment. bDMARD = biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic treatment; CDUS = colour Doppler ultrasound; DAS-28 = Disease activity score 28 joints c-reactive protein; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; T = Tesla; Ω = 26 patients were offered participation of whom 3 declined and 3 did not fulfil inclusion criteria (no synovial hypertrophy), respectively. *At baseline, MRI was not performed in 5 patients due to logistics (N = 3) and contra-indications (N = 2). ** At follow-up, CDUS was missing in 1 patient due to logistics. *** At follow-up MRI was only performed in 11 patients due to logistics.
Patient demographics and clinical characteristics.
| Variables | Baseline (N = 16) | Follow up (N = 16) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female, no. (%) | 11 (65%) | - | - |
| Age, years | 61.2 [44.9;67.8] | - | - |
| Disease duration, years | 8.5 [5.8;14.0] | - | - |
| RF-positive, no. (%) | 14 (88%) | - | - |
| Anti-CCP-positive, no. (%) | 14 (88%) | - | - |
| DAS-28-CRP, score: 0–10 | 5.4 [3.5;5.7] | 3.4 [2.8; 3.7] | -1.8 [-3.0;0.1] |
| C-reactive protein, mg/L | 27 [5;38] | 3.5 [1.0;6.5] | -13.5 [-34.5; 0.0] |
| VAS patient global, scale: 0–100 | 81 [69;86] | 30 [19;66] | -22 [-54;-4] |
| Tender joint count, 28 joints | 5.5 [2.5;9.0] | 2.0 [1.0;4.0] | -3.0[-5.5;0.3] |
| Swollen joint count, 28 joints | 6.0 [3.8;9.0] | 3.0 [1.0;5.0] | -3.5[-8.0;-0.8] |
| Biologic DMARD, total (%) | 0 (0%) | 16 (100%) | - |
| Abatacept | 0 | 1 | - |
| Certulizumab | 0 | 3 | - |
| Etanercept | 0 | 6 | - |
| Infliximab | 0 | 1 | - |
| Mabthera | 0 | 2 | - |
| RoActemra | 0 | 3 | - |
| Conventional DMARD | |||
| MTX, no. (%) | 10 (63%) | 10 (63%) | 0 |
| SZS, no. (%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (6%) | 0 |
| LFU, no. (%) | 4 (25%) | 2 (13%) | -2 |
| Prednisolone therapy, 10 mg/day | 6 (6%) | 1 (6%) | -5 |
Overview of patient demographics at baseline and change at follow up. Patients were followed for a medium time of 10 months (IQR 7 to 11 months). At follow up patients had been receiving bDMARD for a medium time of 7 months (IQR 5 to 9 months). Values are median [Q1; Q3]. LFU = Leflunomide, MCP = Metacarpo-phalangeal joint, MTX = Methotrexate, no. = number, PIP = Proximal interphalangeal joint, SD = standard deviation, Q1 = 1st Quartile, Q3 = 3rd Quartile, SZS = Salazopyrin, VAS = Visual analogue scale.–data not reported.
*percentage of patients;
‡ in combination with bDMARD;
¥ 5 patients were previous bDMARD failures (4 infliximab; 1 rituximab)
•Six patients were in MTX monotherapy, 2 patients MTX+SZS, 2 patients in triple DMARD;
∞ At baseline 5 patients received prednisolone in combination with conventional DMARD, 1 patient received prednisolone monotherapy at 5 mg.
Fig 2Scatter plots depicting fold changes in explant IL-6 production versus changes in DAS-28, CFmax and RAMRIS BME.
Scatter plots depicting fold changes (2 week/72h) in IL-6 versus changes in DAS-28 (16 patients, 40 explants), CFmax (N = 15, 38 explants) and RAMRIS BME score (N = 11, 28 explants) among bDMARD-treated patients. Correlations were calculated using Spearman’s rank coefficients and P-values were calculated using mixed effects models for the imaging data A) ρ = 0.56, P = 0.03; B) ρ = 0.52, P = 0.04; C) ρ = 0.56, P = 0.03. bDMARD = in vitro added biologic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug; CFmax = maximal color fraction,; DAS-28 = Disease Activity Score of 28 joints including C reactive protein; IL-6 = interleukine 6; RAMRIS BME = Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score for Bone Marrow Oedema.
Fig 3Box plots illustrating changes in fold changes in explant production of IL-6 with regards to in vitro interventions and EULAR responses.
Box plots illustrating changes in fold changes in explant production of IL-6 with regards to in vitro interventions and EULAR responses. ‘Diamond’ corresponds to mean fold change of IL-6. Only statistically significant P-values are depicted. a) bDMARD treated samples, b) spontaneous release, c) isotype control, d) good responders, e) moderate responders, f) none responders. bDMARD = in vitro added biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug; IL-6 = interleukin 6; pg = picogram; Isotype = isotype matched IgG. NS = statistically non-significant, P>0.05.
An overview of global imaging activity during the study period.
| Variables | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observations | Median [Q1;Q3] | Observations | Median [Q1;Q3] | Median [Q1;Q3] | ||||
| Imaging | ||||||||
| CFmax (0–1) | ||||||||
| Wrist | 37[14] | 0.09 [0.02; 0.22] | 35 [13] | 0.0 [0.0; 0.17] | 0.0 [-0.15; 0.003] | |||
| MCP | 3[2] | 0.08 [0.0; 0.52] | 3 [2] | 0.14 [0;0.16] | 0.0 [-0.35; 0.06] | |||
| Total | 40[16] | 0.09 [0.01; 0.22] | 38[15] | 0.0 [0.0; 0.16] | 0.0 [-0.15; 0.003] | |||
| RAMRIS synovitis score (0–3) | ||||||||
| Wrist | 26[10] | 3.0 [2.0; 3.0] | 26[10] | [1.0; 2.0] | -1.0 [-1.0; 2.0] | |||
| MCP | 2[1] | 2.5 [2.0; 3.0] | 2[1] | 2.5 [2.0; 3.0] | 0.0 [0.0; 0.0] | |||
| Total | 28[11] | 3.0 [2.0; 3.0] | 28[11] | 1.5 [1.0; 2.0] | -1.0[-1.0; 0.0] | |||
| RAMRIS BME score (0–3) | ||||||||
| Wrist | 26[10] | 1.75 [1.0; 2.5] | 26[10] | 0.75 [0.0; 2.0] | -0.5 [-2.0;0.0] | |||
| MCP | 2[1] | 1.5 [0.0; 3.0] | 2[1] | 2.3[1.5; 3.0] | 0.75 [0.0; 1.5] | |||
| Total | 28[11] | 1.8 [1.0; 2.8] | 28[11] | 0.9 [0.0; 1.5] | -0.3 [-1.8; 0.0] | |||
| RAMRIS erosion score (0–3) | ||||||||
| Wrist | 26[10] | 1.75 [1.0; 2.5] | 26[10] | 2.0 [1.25;2.5] | 0.0 [0.0; 0.5] | |||
| MCP | 2[1] | 2.0[1.5; 2.5] | 2[1] | 2.3 [1.5;3.0] | 0.3 [0.0; 0.5] | |||
| Total | 28[11] | 1.8 [1.0;2.5] | 28[11] | 2.0 [1.3; 2.7] | 0.0 [0;0.50] | |||
Overview of imaging activity among the 16 RA patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were initiated in biological treatment. Data presented as median [IQR] and (min; max). CFmax = colour fraction measured in the systole; IQR = Interquartile range (1st quartile; 3rd quartile); Max. = maximum; MCP = Metacarpophalangeal joint; Min. = minimum; no. = number PIP = Proximal interphalangeal joint; RAMRIS BME Score = Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Bone Marrow Oedema Score.