Which advanced treatment should be used following the failure of a first-line anti-TNF in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? 15 years of evidence from the Quebec registry RHUMADATA.

BACKGROUND: Since 2000, advanced therapies (AT) have revolutionized the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Randomized control trials as well as observational studies together with medication availability often determine second-line choices after the failure of first Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitors (TNFi). This led to the observation that specific sequences provide better long-term effectiveness. We investigated which alternative medication offers the best long-term sustainability following the first TNFi failure in RA. METHODS: Data were extracted from RHUMADATA from January2007. Patients were followed until treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or November 25, 2022. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used to compare discontinuation between groups. Missing data were imputed, and propensity scores were computed to reduce potential attribution bias. Complete, unadjusted, and propensity score-adjusted imputed data analyses were produced. RESULTS: 611 patients (320 treated with a TNFi and 291 treated with molecules having another mechanism of action (OMA)) were included. The mean age at diagnosis was 44.5 and 43.9 years, respectively. The median retention was 2.84 and 4.48 years for TNFi and OMAs groups. Using multivariable analysis, the discontinuation rate of the OMA group was significantly lower than TNFi (adjHR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.94). This remained true for the PS-adjusted MI Cox models. In a stratified analysis, rituximab (adjHR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84) had better retention than TNFi after adjusting for patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Switching to an OMA, especially rituximab, in patients with failure to a first TNFi appears to be the best strategy as a second line of therapy.

Capillary pathology with prominent basement membrane reduplication is the hallmark histopathological feature of scleromyositis.

AIMS: We aim to perform ultrastructural and histopathological analysis of muscle biopsies from a large group of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients, including some with early/mild SSc features, and examine whether capillary pathology differentiates 'scleromyositis' (SM) from other auto-immune myositis (AIM) subsets. METHODS: Muscle biopsies from a total of 60 SM patients and 43 AIM controls from two independent cohorts were examined by electron microscopy, collagen-4 immunofluorescence (Col4IF) and routine light microscopy. RESULTS: Ultrastructural examination revealed prominent capillary basement membrane (BM) reduplication (4+ layers in >50% of capillaries) in 65% of SM vs 0% of AIM controls (p < 0.001). In SM cases without prominent BM reduplication, capillary dilation was the most distinctive feature, present in 8% of capillaries in SM vs 2% in controls (p = 0.001). Accumulation of ensheathed pericyte processes was another characteristic feature of SM and closely correlated with the degree of BM reduplication (r = 0.833, p < 0.001). On light microscopy, BM marker Col4IF revealed more frequent capillary enlargement in SM than in controls (84% vs 21%, p < 0.001). SM cases were classified as non-inflammatory myopathy (36%), non-specific myositis (33%) or immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (31%), but despite this histopathological heterogeneity, prominent BM reduplication remained a constant finding. In the 16 SM patients with early/mild SSc features, 63% showed prominent BM reduplication. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that capillary pathology, and in particular prominent capillary BM reduplication, is the hallmark histopathological feature of SM even in patients with early/mild SSc and support the concept of SM as an organ manifestation of SSc and a distinct subset of AIM.

Clinical peripheral enthesitis in the DESIR prospective longitudinal axial spondyloarthritis cohort.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the prevalence and characteristics of peripheral enthesitis in recent onset axial spondyloarthritis, estimate the incidence of peripheral enthesitis over time, and determine the factors associated with the presence of peripheral enthesitis. METHODS: 708 patients with recent onset axial spondyloarthritis were enrolled in the DESIR cohort ( prospective multi-centre, longitudinal). Data regarding the patients and spondyloarthritis characteristics at baseline with a specific focus on enthesitis and occurrence of peripheral enthesitis were collected during the five years of follow-up. RESULTS: At inclusion, 395 patients (55.8%) reported peripheral enthesitis. The locations were mainly the plantar fascia (53.7%) and the Achilles tendon (38.5%). During the 5-year follow-up period, 109 additional patients developed peripheral enthesitis resulting in an estimated (Kaplan-Meier method) percentage of 71% (95% CI: 68-75). Variables associated with peripheral enthesitis in the univariate analysis were: older age, male gender, absence of HLA B27, MRI sacroiliitis and fulfilled Modified NY criteria, presence of anterior chest wall pain, peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, psoriasis, high BASDAI, BASFI, mean score ASAS-and the use of NSAIDs. Only the history of anterior chest wall pain and of peripheral arthritis were retained in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio (OR)=1.6 [95% confidence interval [1.1-2.3], and OR=2.1 [1.4-3.0], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high prevalence of peripheral enthesitis in recent onset axial spondyloarthritis, and suggests that in combination with peripheral arthritis, enthesitis might have an impact on the burden of the disease.

Quantification of the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials Supporting Clinical Care Guidelines: The Case of Thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines are based on the results of several randomized controlled trials. However, due to the stringent exclusion criteria of these trials, their external validity may be low. We aimed to evaluate the external validity of the randomized controlled trials cited in the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines for the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, chart-review study of a random sample of patients admitted between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 to the Internal Medicine ward of a large Canadian teaching university hospital. We identified the proportion of our population presenting exclusion criteria used in the randomized controlled trials cited in support of clinical care guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in the medical setting. RESULTS: Nine trials were identified for a total of 28,793 included patients following 23 distinct exclusion criteria. We included 429 patients. Median age was 65 years (interquartile ratio 51-77 years), and 236 (55%) were males. Of those not already anticoagulated at admission (n = 351), between 26% and 67% (weighted average, 51%) of our population presented at least one exclusion criterion, making them ineligible to be enrolled in randomized controlled trials. When restricting our population to patients with an indication for thromboprophylaxis based on a Padua risk score at admission ≥4, 21% to 76% (weighted average 55%) were ineligible to be enrolled in individual trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our cross-sectional study illustrates that the external validity of randomized controlled trials cited in the guidelines was low in our population, and lower when applying the risk-stratification tool recommended by guidelines. This can bias the clinicians toward treating patients that were not represented in the supporting evidence.