Stratification of biological therapies by pathobiology in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (STRAP and STRAP-EU): two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite highly effective targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, about 40% of patients respond poorly, and predictive biomarkers for treatment choices are lacking. We did a biopsy-driven trial to compare the response to rituximab, etanercept, and tocilizumab in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified for synovial B cell status. METHODS: STRAP and STRAP-EU were two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, stratified, randomised, phase 3 trials done across 26 university centres in the UK and Europe. Biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were included. Following ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy, patients were classified as B cell poor or B cell rich according to synovial B cell signatures and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous rituximab (1000 mg at week 0 and week 2), subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg per week). The primary outcome was the 16-week ACR20 response in the B cell-poor, intention-to-treat population (defined as all randomly assigned patients), with data pooled from the two trials, comparing etanercept and tocilizumab (grouped) versus rituximab. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2014-003529-16 (STRAP) and 2017-004079-30 (STRAP-EU). FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2015, and July 4, 2019, 226 patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=73), tocilizumab (n=74), and rituximab (n=79). Three patients (one in each group) were excluded after randomisation because they received parenteral steroids in the 4 weeks before recruitment. 168 (75%) of 223 patients in the intention-to-treat population were women and 170 (76%) were White. In the B cell-poor population, ACR20 response at 16 weeks (primary endpoint) showed no significant differences between etanercept and tocilizumab grouped together and rituximab (46 [60%] of 77 patients vs 26 [59%] of 44; odds ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·47-2·17], p=0·97). No differences were observed for adverse events, including serious adverse events, which occurred in six (6%) of 102 patients in the rituximab group, nine (6%) of 108 patients in the etanercept group, and three (4%) of 73 patients in the tocilizumab group (p=0·53). INTERPRETATION: In this biologic-naive population of patients with rheumatoid arthrtitis, the dichotomic classification into synovial B cell poor versus rich did not predict treatment response to B cell depletion with rituximab compared with alternative treatment strategies. However, the lack of response to rituximab in patients with a pauci-immune pathotype and the higher risk of structural damage progression in B cell-rich patients treated with rituximab warrant further investigations into the ability of synovial tissue analyses to inform disease pathogenesis and treatment response. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis.

A Pauci-Immune Synovial Pathotype Predicts Inadequate Response to TNFα-Blockade in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

Objectives: To assess whether the histopathological features of the synovium before starting treatment with the TNFi certolizumab-pegol could predict clinical outcome and examine the modulation of histopathology by treatment. Methods: Thirty-seven RA patients fulfilling UK NICE guidelines for biologic therapy were enrolled at Barts Health NHS trust and underwent synovial sampling of an actively inflamed joint using ultrasound-guided needle biopsy before commencing certolizumab-pegol and after 12-weeks. At 12-weeks, patients were categorized as responders if they had a DAS28 fall >1.2. A minimum of 6 samples was collected for histological analysis. Based on H&E and immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining for CD3 (T cells), CD20 (B cells), CD138 (plasma cells), and CD68 (macrophages) patients were categorized into three distinct synovial pathotypes (lympho-myeloid, diffuse-myeloid, and pauci-immune). Results: At baseline, as per inclusion criteria, DAS28 mean was 6.4 ± 0.9. 94.6% of the synovial tissue was retrieved from the wrist or a metacarpophalangeal joint. Histological pathotypes were distributed as follows: 58% lympho-myeloid, 19.4% diffuse-myeloid, and 22.6% pauci-immune. Patients with a pauci-immune pathotype had lower levels of CRP but higher VAS fatigue compared to lympho- and diffuse-myeloid. Based on DAS28 fall >1.2, 67.6% of patients were deemed as responders and 32.4% as non-responders. However, by categorizing patients according to the baseline synovial pathotype, we demonstrated that a significantly higher number of patients with a lympho-myeloid and diffuse-myeloid pathotype in comparison with pauci-immune pathotype [83.3% (15/18), 83.3 % (5/6) vs. 28.6% (2/7), p = 0.022) achieved clinical response to certolizumab-pegol. Furthermore, we observed a significantly higher level of post-treatment tender joint count and VAS scores for pain, fatigue and global health in pauci-immune in comparison with lympho- and diffuse-myeloid patients but no differences in the number of swollen joints, ESR and CRP. Finally, we confirmed a significant fall in the number of CD68+ sublining macrophages post-treatment in responders and a correlation between the reduction in the CD20+ B-cells score and the improvement in the DAS28 at 12-weeks. Conclusions: The analysis of the synovial histopathology may be a helpful tool to identify among clinically indistinguishable patients those with lower probability of response to TNFα-blockade.

Synovial tissue signatures enhance clinical classification and prognostic/treatment response algorithms in early inflammatory arthritis and predict requirement for subsequent biological therapy: results from the pathobiology of early arthritis cohort (PEAC).

OBJECTIVE: To establish whether synovial pathobiology improves current clinical classification and prognostic algorithms in early inflammatory arthritis and identify predictors of subsequent biological therapy requirement. METHODS: 200 treatment-naïve patients with early arthritis were classified as fulfilling RA1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (RA1987) or as undifferentiated arthritis (UA) and patients with UA further classified into those fulfilling RA2010 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. Treatment requirements at 12 months (Conventional Synthetic Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (csDMARDs) vs biologics vs no-csDMARDs treatment) were determined. Synovial tissue was retrieved by minimally invasive, ultrasound-guided biopsy and underwent processing for immunohistochemical (IHC) and molecular characterisation. Samples were analysed for macrophage, plasma-cell and B-cells and T-cells markers, pathotype classification (lympho-myeloid, diffuse-myeloid or pauci-immune) by IHC and gene expression profiling by Nanostring. RESULTS: 128/200 patients were classified as RA1987, 25 as RA2010 and 47 as UA. Patients classified as RA1987 criteria had significantly higher levels of disease activity, histological synovitis, degree of immune cell infiltration and differential upregulation of genes involved in B and T cell activation/function compared with RA2010 or UA, which shared similar clinical and pathobiological features. At 12-month follow-up, a significantly higher proportion of patients classified as lympho-myeloid pathotype required biological therapy. Performance of a clinical prediction model for biological therapy requirement was improved by the integration of synovial pathobiological markers from 78.8% to 89%-90%. CONCLUSION: The capacity to refine early clinical classification criteria through synovial pathobiological markers offers the potential to predict disease outcome and stratify therapeutic intervention to patients most in need.