Reactive arthritis and other musculoskeletal symptoms associated with acquisition of diarrhoeagenic Escherichia coli (DEC).

OBJECTIVES: Using a prospective research design, we evaluated the association between acquisition of diarrhoeagenic Escherichia coli (DEC) and development of reactive arthritis (ReA) and other reactive musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms among international travellers. METHODS: A total of 526 study participants were asked to provide pretravel and post-travel stool samples and fill in questionnaires (pretravel, post-travel and 3-week follow-up). A multiplex quantitative PCR assay was deployed to detect five DEC comprising enteroaggregative E. coli, enteropathogenic E. coli, enterotoxigenic E. coli, enterohaemorrhagic E. coli and enteroinvasive E. coli and Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, and Vibrio cholerae. Multivariate analysis was employed to identify factors predisposing to MSK symptoms. New post-travel MSK symptoms reported by participants with DEC were assessed by phone interviews and, if needed, clinically confirmed. RESULTS: From among the total of 224 volunteers who returned all questionnaires and stool specimens, 38 (17.0%) reported MSK symptoms. Multivariate analysis revealed that acquisition of DEC was associated with MSK symptoms (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 13.3). Of the 151 with only-DEC, four (2.6%) had ReA, two (1.3%) reactive tendinitis and three (2.0%) reactive arthralgia. ReA was mostly mild, and all patients with ReA were negative for human leucocyte antigen B27. Antibiotic treatment of travellers' diarrhoea did not prevent development of MSK symptoms. CONCLUSION: A total of 17% of volunteers reported post-travel MSK symptoms. DEC acquisition was associated with an increased risk of developing them, yet the ReA incidence remained low and the clinical picture mild. Antibiotic treatment did not protect against development of MSK symptoms.

Yersinia enterocolitica biotype 1A: a possible new trigger of reactive arthritis.

Yersinia enterocolitica (YE) biotype 1A is generally considered non-pathogenic, and the role of it in causing reactive musculoskeletal complications is unclear. We evaluated the capability of YE biotype 1A to induce reactive arthritis (ReA) and other reactive musculoskeletal symptoms. Analysis of self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms was supplemented with a telephone interview (with a permission to acquire copies of patient files from a local physician or hospital) and/or clinical examination of subjects with recent musculoskeletal symptoms after a positive stool culture for YE. The diagnoses of ReA and reactive tendinitis and enthesitis (ReTe) were defined as "definite" when based on clinical examination and/or on interview by phone and "probable" when based solely on the questionnaire. Of 120 subjects, who reported musculoskeletal symptoms, 100 were included in the final analysis. Among these 100 patients, 68% had YE biotype 1A, 16% YE bio/serotype 4, and 1% biotype 2 infection; the remaining 15% had different YE-like strains or a non-biotypable strain. Of the 21 patients with ReA and of the 14 patients with ReTe, the diagnosis was definite in 9 and 7 patients and probable in 12 and 7 patients, respectively. The clinical picture of ReA caused by YE biotype 1A was similar with other bio/serotypes of YE. The definite ReA due to YE biotype 1A occurred in middle-aged adults (5 men, 4 women) with the most frequently affected joints being the knees and ankles. We suggest that YE biotype 1A should be taken into account as a new trigger of ReA.

Cost-effectiveness of biologic compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Register study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) for RA using real-world data from Finnish registers. METHODS: RA patients starting their first bDMARD and comparator patients using csDMARDs during 2007-11 were obtained from the National register of biologic treatments in Finland and the Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for differences between bDMARD and csDMARD users. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and based on the register of biologic treatments in Finland and Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records, whereas the direct costs were obtained from relevant Finnish national registers. Patients were followed up for 2 years, and both costs and effectiveness for the second year were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with 95% CI was calculated based on bootstrapped mean costs and effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 1581 RA patients meeting study inclusion criteria, 552 bDMARD and 220 csDMARD users were included in analyses after matching. Mean costs for bDMARDs and csDMARDs were €55 371 and €24 879, while mean effectiveness was 1.23 and 1.20 QALYs, respectively. Consequent ICER was €902 210/QALY. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The high incremental cost and the small, non-significant difference in effectiveness resulted in high ICER, suggesting that bDMARDs are not cost-effective. Regardless of matching, latent confounders may introduce bias to the results.

Cytotoxic response persists in subjects treated for tuberculosis decades ago.

BACKGROUND: Data exploring the potential use of effector molecules produced by cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) in the immunodiagnostics of tuberculosis (TB) are scarce. The present study focused a) to gain an insight into the discriminatory power of CTLs in patients with acute pulmonary or extra-pulmonary TB, or latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI); and b) to evaluate the influence of various anti-TB therapeutic schemes on the immunological profiles of residual CTLs. METHODS: Immunological signatures of antigen-specific CTLs were explored in patients with active pulmonary and extra-pulmonary TB, LTBI and in those treated for TB decades ago by using ELISPOT, intracellular flow cytometry and extracellular CD107a detection. RESULTS: No difference was seen between active TB, LTBI or any of those treated for TB in the ELISPOT analysis of antigen-specific Granzyme B (GrB), Perforin (Prf) and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) producing lymphocytes, the FACS analysis of the intracellular expression of IFN-γ, or the surface expression of CD107a degranulation factor of both CD8+ and CD4+ antigen-specific T cell subsets. The effector memory (TEM) phenotype proved predominant in the surface marker profiling both in active TB and LTBI. The proportion of the CD107a degranulation factor proved higher in the central memory (TCM) than in the other cell subsets in all the study groups. Interestingly, functionally and phenotypically similar CTLs profiles were observed in active TB, LTBI and in all the three groups treated for TB. CONCLUSION: The phenotypic and functional profiling of CTLs has a limited potential in the immunodiagnostics of active TB. Antigen-specific CTLs persist in patients treated for TB decades ago regardless of the efficacy of implemented and completed anti-TB therapy.

[Systemic sclerosis]. / Systeeminen skleroosi.

Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) is a rare connective tissue disease characterized by vasculopathy and immune dysfunction, leading to fibrosis with damage of multiple organs. Two major clinical subtypes are the diffuse and limited forms. The combination of Raynaud's phenomenon, puffy fingers and positive antinuclear antibodies are red flag features that should alert the clinician to the presence of very early systemic sclerosis, which can be treated with vasodilator, antithrombotic, and immunosuppressive drugs. Progress has been made even in the management of the most severe manifestations, including interstitial lung disease, pulmonary artery hypertension and scleroderma renal crisis.

Adalimumab and sulfasalazine in alleviating sacroiliac and aortic inflammation detected in PET/CT in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: PETSPA.

AIM: Inflammatory signals in the sacroiliac (SI) joints and the aorta of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were graded by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging before and after treatment with sulfasalazine (SSZ) or adalimumab (ADA). METHODS: Patients with axSpA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 4, were recruited. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients started SSZ for 12 weeks, whereas those with prestudy treatment with or contraindication to SSZ commenced ADA for 16 weeks. In addition, those patients in the SSZ group with insufficient response commenced ADA for 16 weeks. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT was performed after inclusion and after treatment with SSZ and ADA. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was assessed for the aorta and the SI joints, and maximal target-to-blood-pool ratio (TBRmax) only for the aorta. RESULTS: Among five SSZ patients, mean ± SD BASDAI was 4.7 ± 1.6 before and 3.5 ± 1.4 after treatment (p = .101). In 13 ADA patients, the BASDAI decreased from 5.4 ± 1.6 to 2.8 ± 2.2 (p < .001). Among the SSZ patients, SUVmax in SI joints decreased from 2.35 ± 0.55 to 1.51 ± 0.22 (-35.8%, p = .029). Aortic TBRmax decreased from 1.59 ± 0.43 to 1.26 ± 0.26 (-33.2%, p = .087). In the ADA patients, SUVmax in the SI joints was 1.92 ± 0.65 before and 1.88 ± 0.54 after treatment (-1.8%, p = .808) and TBRmax in the aorta 1.50 ± 0.60 before and 1.40 ± 0.26 after treatment (-6.7%, p = .485). CONCLUSIONS: Our small open-label study showed that SSZ may reduce PET-CT-detectable inflammation in the SI joints, with a trend towards a reduction in the aorta.

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.

Anti-TNF therapy in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: the Finnish experience.

Biological therapy for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has led to improved disease control beyond that of conventional treatments. International recommendations encourage clinicians prescribing biological treatments to register patients in national registers to collect information on outcome and toxicity. Patients with AS (n = 229) from the Register of Biological Treatment in Finland (ROB-FIN) with severe disease of long duration were followed-up for up to 24 months. Due to an active disease, one or more concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were used by 86% at commencement of biological therapy. This add-on strategy with infliximab led to a rapid pain relief and improvement of patient's and physician's global assessments, C-reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and swollen and tender joint counts within 6 weeks. Concomitant use of NSAID and oral corticosteroid was reduced. Corresponding results were documented at 3 months with etanercept, which was more recently approved for the treatment of spondyloarthropathies. Seventy-nine percent of the patients were ASAS 20 responders. A subgroup of AS patients with only axial involvement (n = 46) responded correspondingly. The first biological drug was discontinued in only 7% due to lack of efficacy and in 6% due to adverse events. Anti-TNF agents, often used in combination with DMARDs, appeared to have persistent effectiveness and limited toxicity in a real-life clinical setting in a cohort of Finnish AS patients with severe disease and long disease duration.

Modification of clearview tuberculosis (TB) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for TB patients not infected with HIV.

Diagnosis of active tuberculosis by detection of urinary lipoarabinomannan (uLAM) from Mycobacterium tuberculosis is an attractive approach. Concentrating urine 100-fold allowed quantitation of uLAM at levels equal to picograms/ml of nonconcentrated urine. The approach of concentrating urine 100-fold improved the clinical sensitivity of the Clearview TB enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) from 7% to 57% yet impaired its specificity from 97% to 89%. (This study has been registered at University Hospital of Turku under registration no. 47/180/2009, Helsinki University Central Hospital under 149/2010, University Hospital of Kuopio under 105/2010, and China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, under DMR-99-IRB-075-2.).

Do biologic drugs affect the need for and outcome of joint replacements in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? A register-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to study the incidence of joint replacements among biologic drug and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) users as well as to investigate the plausible effect of biologic treatment on survival of prostheses in patients with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: The study population comprised 2 cohorts of patients [Register of biologic treatment in Finland (ROB-FIN) and the Central Finland RA database] from 1999 to 2010. Records of joint replacements performed in the study population between 1980 and 2010 were retrieved from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Propensity score matching was used to equalize patient characteristics between biologics and DMARD users. The incidence rates of primary and revision operations were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyze prosthesis survival. RESULTS: Of the 2102 biologics and 2710 DMARD users identified from the registries, 1587 were included in both groups after the matching. Median follow-up times were 3.1 and 8.0 years, respectively. There were more primary operations per 100 patient years in the biologics (3.89, CI 95% 3.41-4.41) vs. DMARD (2.63, 2.35-2.94) group but slightly fewer revisions (0.65, 0.46-0.88 vs. 0.83, 0.68-1.01). Biologics users were more likely to receive a joint replacement to small joints (p < 0.001). The survival of the prostheses installed during or prior to follow-up was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of biologic drugs did not reduce the need for joint replacement surgery in patients with a similar on-medication disease activity. Despite possibly lower rate of revisions among biologic users, the durability of prostheses was not improved.