No impact of tumor necrosis-factor antagonists on the joint manifestations of sarcoidosis.

OBJECTIVE: The use of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents to treat joint manifestations of sarcoidosis has not been described. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of three such biologics in patients with these symptoms refractory to conventional therapy (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, and/or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs). METHODS: This retrospective study, covering January 2001 to September 2011, examined clinical-biological parameters collected before anti-TNF treatment (age, sex, duration of disease evolution, drugs taken), and at introduction and under anti-TNF therapy (number of painful and swollen joints, visual analog scale score of global disease activity, disease-activity score of 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein, TNF-antagonist duration). At 3, 6, and 12 months, anti-TNF impact on joints and the therapeutic response according to European League Against Rheumatism criteria used for rheumatoid arthritis were assessed. RESULTS: Ten patients' data were evaluated; some of them had received several anti-TNF agents (median [range] duration on each biotherapy was 10 [4-30] months), which enabled analysis of 19 prescriptions. The total duration of anti-TNF exposure was 17.6 patient-years, which was started a median of 3 (0.33-17) years after sarcoidosis diagnosis. The median numbers of painful and swollen joints were 1 (0-28) and 0 (0-9), respectively. Despite rapid efficacy, after 1 year of treatment, clinical (especially joint) and biological parameters were comparable to pretreatment, and only the corticosteroid dose was significantly lower (P=0.03). One case of mild skin toxicity was noted. CONCLUSION: TNF antagonists allowed significant steroid sparing and were well tolerated, but do not seem to be effective against sarcoidosis joint involvement.

Efficacy of anti-TNF in patients with spondyloarthritis in absence of any imaging sign.

OBJECTIVE: Some clinical pictures satisfy spondyloarthritis criteria without any detected imaging signs and the question sometimes arises in clinical daily practice if biologics should be started. Our aim was to evaluate anti-TNF efficacy in patients with clinical but not imaging (radiographic, CT-scan, MRI) signs of spondyloarthritis. METHODS: This retrospective study concerned patients with axial spondyloarthritis fulfilling European Spondyloarthritis Study Group (ESSG) criteria, treated with anti-TNF after failure of conventional therapies. Therapeutic responses, rated according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)-50% or 20 mm and ASAS-20 or -40 definitions, were evaluated after 12 months. Factors associated with those responses were also sought. Propensity score was used to check thereafter whether there were interactions with some baseline variables. RESULTS: Among 385 patients included, 257 with imaging signs had significantly more frequent therapeutic responses (P=0.0005). About 40% of the spondyloarthritis patients without imaging signs responded to anti-TNF. The response rate was significantly higher in HLA-B27 carriers with initial imaging signs (P=0.028). Furthermore, responders were younger at biotherapy onset, with lower Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and pain visual analog scale score, and higher C-reactive protein (CRP), compared to non-responders. After weighted calculation, the prediction of response to TNF-blockers was quite similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The percentage of patients with exclusively clinical signs who responded to anti-TNF was far from negligible. Regardless the HLA-B27 status, having imaging signs of spondyloarthritis does not provide a superiority of response to anti-TNF compared to the absence of imaging sign. The absence of any imaging sign in patients with spondyloarthritis should therefore not lead to the exclusion of anti-TNF therapy.