Responsiveness and sensitivity of PROMs to change in disease activity status in early and established rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) capturing activity limitations, health impact, pain, fatigue and work ability are responsive and sensitive to changes in disease activity status in patients with early and established rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: All early RA patients (n = 557) from the tREACH-trial and established RA patients (n = 188) from the TARA-trial were included. Both studies were multicentre, single-blinded trials with a treat-to-target management approach. The following PROMs were studied: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index(HAQ-DI), morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D, general health, 36-item short form(SF-36), joint pain, fatigue and productivity loss. Mean changes in PROMs between two consecutive visits were compared with changes in disease activity status(remission, low disease activity and active disease) using linear mixed models and standardised response means. Additionally, the proportion of individual observations that showed an expected PROM response to disease activity status alterations was calculated. RESULTS: HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, general health, EQ-5D and joint pain demonstrated responsiveness to improvement or worsening of disease activity status in both early and established RA. SF-36 physical and mental component scale, fatigue and productivity loss did not show this effect in both groups. Across nearly all PROMs, the magnitude of change and the proportion of individual observations that reflect a shift from and to active disease remained low. CONCLUSION: HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D, general health and joint pain are responsive to disease activity status alterations on a group level in both early and established RA. For the individual patient the responsiveness of these PROMs is poor. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: tREACH trial (www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN26791028) and TARA trial (www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl, NTR2754).

Patient burden and joint-inflammation during development of RA from arthralgia: is it similar in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative disease?

OBJECTIVES: Anti-citrullinated protein antibody(ACPA)-positive and ACPA-negative rheumatoid arthritis(RA) differ in underlying risk factors but have a similar clinical presentation at RA-diagnosis. It is unknown what the ACPA-associated differences or similarities are during the symptomatic at-risk stage of RA, clinically suspect arthralgia(CSA). To deepen insights into these differences/similarities, we compared the course of symptoms/impairments and subclinical joint-inflammation in the CSA-phase during progression to inflammatory arthritis(IA) or to CSA-resolution. METHODS: 845 CSA-patients were followed for median 24 months; 136 patients developed IA and additional 355/505 patients had resolution of CSA according to rheumatologists. Patient burden (pain/morning stiffness/fatigue/functional disabilities/presenteeism) was assessed at baseline, 4/12/24 months and IA-development. Subclinical joint-inflammation in hands/feet was assessed over time with 1.5 T-MRI. Linear/Poisson mixed models were used. RESULTS: Both in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients, patient burden increased towards IA-development and decreased towards CSA-resolution. However, patient burden was lower in ACPA-positive than ACPA-negative disease on all timepoints. Conversely, subclinical joint-inflammation tended to increase more rapidly during development of ACPA-positive IA (IRR = 1.52,95%CI = 0.94-2.47, p= 0.089), and remained higher over time in ACPA-positive CSA-patients achieving resolution compared with ACPA-negative patients (IRR = 1.52,95%CI = 1.07-2.15, p= 0.018). Although correlation coefficients between changes in patient burden and subclinical joint-inflammation during progression to IA were weak, they were consistently higher in ACPA-positive than ACPA-negative disease, e.g. ρ = 0.29 vs ρ = 0.12 for functional disabilities. CONCLUSION: During RA-development and CSA-resolution, ACPA-positive CSA-patients have lower patient burden, but more subclinical joint-inflammation than ACPA-negative CSA-patients. These data strengthen the notion that the development of ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative RA is pathophysiologically different, and encourage further research on these differences.

Ultrasound of the forefeet besides the hands in patients at risk for rheumatoid arthritis: is it worth the effort? A longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Ultrasound (US) can detect subclinical joint-inflammation in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA), which is valuable as predictor for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development. In most research protocols both hands and forefeet are scanned, but it is unclear if US of the forefeet has additional value for predicting RA, especially since synovial hypertrophy in MTP-joints of healthy individuals is also common. To explore the possibility to omit scanning of the forefeet we determined if US of the forefeet is of additional predictive value for RA-development in CSA patients. METHODS: CSA patients of two independent cohorts underwent US of the hands and forefeet. We analyzed the association between RA-development and US-positivity for the full US-protocol, the full US-protocol with correction for Gray Scale(GS)-findings in the forefeet of healthy and the protocol without-forefeet. RESULTS: In total, 298 CSA patients were studied. In patients with a positive US, subclinical joint-inflammation was mostly present in the hands (90-86%). Only 10-14% of patients had subclinical joint-inflammation solely in the forefeet. US-positivity was associated with inflammatory arthritis development in both cohorts, with HRs 2.6(95%CI 0.9-7.5) and 3.1(95%CI 1.5-6.4) for the full protocol, 3.1(95%CI 1.3-7.7) and 2.7(95%CI 1.3-5.4) for the full US-protocol with correction, and 3.1(95%CI 1.4-6.9) and 2.8(95%CI 1.4-5.6) without the forefeet. AUROCs were equal across both cohorts. CONCLUSION: The forefeet can be omitted when US is used for the prediction of RA-development in CSA patients. This is due to the finding that subclinical joint-inflammation in the forefeet without concomitant inflammation in the hands is infrequent.

Patient-reported swelling in arthralgia patients at risk for rheumatoid arthritis: is it of value?

OBJECTIVE: Patients with Clinically Suspect Arthralgia (CSA) are at risk for developing Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). These patients often report joint swelling while this is not objectified by physical examination. To explore the value of patient-reported swelling in CSA, we aimed to determine its association with subclinical joint-inflammation on imaging and RA-development. METHODS: In two independent, similarly designed CSA-cohorts from the Netherlands, symptomatic patients at risk for RA were studied. At baseline, patients indicated whether they had experienced swelling in hand joints. Subclinical joint-inflammation was assessed with MRI or ultrasound (US). Patients were followed for inflammatory arthritis development. RESULTS: In total, 534 CSA-patients from two independent cohorts were studied, patient-reported swelling was present in 57% in cohort 1, and in 43% in cohort 2. In both cohorts patient-reported swelling was associated with subclinical joint-inflammation. Using MRI, it associated specifically with tenosynovitis (OR 3.7 (95%CI 2.0-6.9)) and when using US with synovitis (OR 2.3 (95%CI 1.04-5.3)). CSA-patients with self-reported swelling at baseline developed arthritis more often, with hazard ratios of 3.7 (95%CI 2.0-6.9) and 3.4 (95%CI 1.4-8.4) in cohort 1 and 2, respectively. This was independent of clinical predictors (e.g. morning stiffness), autoantibody-positivity and US-detected subclinical joint-inflammation. However, when corrected for MRI-detected subclinical joint-inflammation, self-reported swelling was no longer an independent predictor. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported joint swelling in CSA relates to subclinical joint-inflammation and is an independent risk factor for RA-development, but it is less predictive than the presence of MRI-detected subclinical joint-inflammation.

Clinically suspect arthralgia patients with a low educational attainment have an increased risk of developing inflammatory arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Cross-sectional studies have shown that rheumatoid arthritis is more prevalent among people with a lower educational attainment. No longitudinal data are present on educational attainment in the at-risk phase of clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA). We therefore analysed the association between educational attainment and progression from CSA to inflammatory arthritis (IA), and performed mediation analysis with subclinical joint inflammation to elucidate pathways of this association. METHODS: A total of 521 consecutive patients presenting with CSA were followed for IA development during median 25 months. Educational attainment was defined as low (lower secondary vocational education), intermediate or high (college/university education). Subclinical inflammation in hand and foot joints was measured at presentation with contrast enhanced 1.5 T-MRI. Cox-regression was used to analyse IA development per educational attainment. A three-step mediation analysis evaluated whether subclinical joint inflammation was intermediary in the path between educational attainment and IA development, before and after age correction. Association between educational attainment and IA development was verified in an independent CSA cohort. RESULTS: Low educational attainment was associated with increased IA development (HR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.27, 4.33, P = 0.006), independent of BMI and current smoking status (yes/no). Moreover, patients with a low educational attainment had higher levels of subclinical inflammation, which also was associated with IA development. Partial mediation effect of subclinical inflammation was observed in the relationship between education and IA development. Low educational attainment was also associated with increased IA development in the validation cohort (HR = 5.72, 95% CI = 1.36, 24.08, P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: This is the first study providing evidence that lower educational attainment is associated with a higher risk of progressing from arthralgia to IA. This effect was partially mediated by subclinical joint inflammation.

Morning stiffness precedes the development of rheumatoid arthritis and associates with systemic and subclinical joint inflammation in arthralgia patients.

OBJECTIVES: Morning stiffness (MS) is characteristic of RA and associates with markers of systemic and local inflammation in RA patients. In patients with arthralgia, MS is a cardinal symptom to recognize arthralgia at-risk for RA development [i.e. clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA)]. In CSA, MS is also assumed to reflect inflammation, but this has never been studied. Therefore we aimed to study whether MS in CSA patients is associated with systemic and subclinical joint inflammation. METHODS: A total of 575 patients presenting with CSA underwent laboratory investigations and contrast-enhanced 1.5 T MRI of the hand and forefoot (scored according to the Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Score method). Associations of MS (duration ≥60 min) with the presence of subclinical joint inflammation (synovitis, tenosynovitis and osteitis) and increased CRP (≥5 mg/l) were determined with logistic regression. Additionally, the effect of MS duration (≥30, ≥60 and ≥120 min) was studied. RESULTS: A total of 195 (34%) CSA patients experienced MS. These patients more often had subclinical synovitis [34% vs 21%; odds ratio (OR) 1.95 (95% CI 1.32, 2.87)], subclinical tenosynovitis [36% vs 26%; OR 1.59 (95% CI 1.10, 2.31)] and increased CRP [31% vs 19%; OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.30, 2.88)] than patients without MS. In multivariable analyses, subclinical synovitis [OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.16, 2.69)] and CRP [OR 1.78 (95% CI 1.17-2.69)] remained independently associated with MS. In CSA patients who later developed RA, and thus in retrospect were 'pre-RA' at the time of CSA, MS was more strongly associated with subclinical synovitis [OR 2.56 (95% CI 1.04, 6.52)] and CRP [OR 3.86 (95% CI 1.45, 10.24)]. Furthermore, associations increased with longer MS durations. CONCLUSION: Inflammation associates with MS in the CSA phase that preceded clinical arthritis. These results increase our understanding of MS when assessing arthralgia in clinical practice.

Hand and foot MRI in contemporary undifferentiated arthritis: in which patients is MRI valuable to detect rheumatoid arthritis early? A large prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying patients that will develop RA among those presenting with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) remains a clinical dilemma. Although MRI is helpful according to EULAR recommendations, this has only been determined in UA patients not fulfilling 1987 RA criteria, while some of these patients are currently considered as RA because they fulfil the 2010 criteria. Therefore, we studied the predictive value of MRI for progression to RA in the current UA population, i.e. not fulfilling RA classification criteria (either 1987 or 2010 criteria) and not having an alternate diagnosis. Additionally, the value of MRI was studied in patients with a clinical diagnosis of UA, regardless of the classification criteria. METHODS: Two UA populations were studied: criteria-based UA as described above (n = 405) and expert-opinion-based UA (n = 564), i.e. UA indicated by treating rheumatologists. These patients were retrieved from a large cohort of consecutively included early arthritis patients that underwent contrast-enhanced MRI scans of hand and foot at baseline. MRIs were scored for osteitis, synovitis and tenosynovitis. Patients were followed for RA development during the course of 1 year. Test characteristics of MRI were determined separately for subgroups based on joint involvement and autoantibody status. RESULTS: Among criteria-based UA patients (n = 405), 21% developed RA. MRI-detected synovitis and MRI-detected tenosynovitis were predictive for progression to RA. MRI-detected tenosynovitis was independently associated with RA progression (odds ratio (OR) 2.79; 95% CI 1.40, 5.58), especially within ACPA-negative UA patients (OR 2.91; 95% CI 1.42, 5.96). Prior risks of RA development for UA patients with mono-, oligo- and polyarthritis were 3%, 19% and 46%, respectively. MRI results changed this risk most within the oligoarthritis subgroup: positive predictive value was 27% and negative predictive value 93%. Similar results were found in expert-opinion-based UA (n = 564). CONCLUSION: This large cohort study showed that MRI is most valuable in ACPA-negative UA patients with oligoarthritis; a negative MRI could aid in preventing overtreatment.

Work participation is reduced during the development of RA, months before clinical arthritis manifests.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether work participation is affected in patients with arthralgia during transition to RA. Arthralgia patients with symptom resolution and early RA patients at diagnosis were used as a reference. METHODS: Three groups of patients were studied: arthralgia patients converting to RA (n = 114), arthralgia patients with spontaneous symptom resolution (n = 57), and early RA patients (n = 617). Both presenteeism (i.e. working while sick, scale 0-10) and absenteeism (i.e. sick leave) were taken into account. Work ability 1 year prior to clinical arthritis was estimated (in absolute numbers). The course of work restriction over time was studied using linear mixed models (ß coefficient; delta per month) within each patient group. RESULTS: One-year prior to the development of clinical arthritis, mean presenteeism was 7.0 (95% CI 5.8, 8.1) in patients with arthralgia, indicating 30% loss, and further worsened to 6.1 (95% CI 5.3, 6.6) at RA diagnosis, thus indicating 39% loss. In early RA patients, presenteeism improved over time after DMARD initiation (ß 0.052 per month 95% CI 0.042, 0.061, P < 0.0001). Presenteeism also improved in arthralgia patients who achieved spontaneous symptom resolution (ß 0.063 per month, 95% CI 0.024, 0.10, P = 0.002). Absenteeism did not change significantly in arthralgia patients, but did improve in RA after DMARD-start. ACPA stratification revealed similar results. CONCLUSION: In the months preceding RA, presenteeism was already apparent, and it worsened further during progression to clinical arthritis and diagnosis. This underlines the relevance of the symptomatic pre-RA phase for patients. The observed reversibility in arthralgia patients with symptom resolution may suggest that intervention in pre-RA could improve work participation.

During development of rheumatoid arthritis, intermetatarsal bursitis may occur before clinical joint swelling: a large imaging study in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia.

OBJECTIVES: Intermetatarsal bursitis (IMB) represents juxta-articular synovial inflammation of the intermetatarsal bursae. Recent MRI studies identified IMB as feature of early RA, but whether IMB already occurs in the pre-arthritic phase is unknown. We performed a large MRI study in clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) to assess the occurrence and prognostic value of IMB. METHODS: A total of 577 consecutive CSA patients underwent contrast-enhanced MRI of the forefoot, metacarpophalangeal joints and wrist. MRIs were evaluated for subclinical synovitis/tenosynovitis/osteitis in line with the RA MRI scoring system (summed as RAMRIS inflammation) and for IMB. IMB was considered present if uncommon in the general population at the same location (i.e. size scored above the 95th percentile in age-matched symptom-free controls). The relation of IMB with other MRI-detected subclinical inflammation (synovitis/tenosynovitis/osteitis) was studied. Cox-regression assessed the association with clinical arthritis development during median 25 months follow-up. ACPA stratification was performed. RESULTS: At presentation with CSA, 23% had IMB. IMB was more frequent in ACPA-positive than ACPA-negative CSA (47% vs 19%, P < 0.001). Patients with IMB were more likely to also have subclinical synovitis [OR 3.4 (95% CI 1.8, 6.5)] and tenosynovitis [5.9(2.8, 12.6)]. IMB conferred higher risk of developing arthritis [HR 1.6(1.0-2.7) adjusted for other subclinical inflammation]. IMB-presence predicted arthritis development in ACPA-positive CSA [adjusted HR 2.2(1.0-4.7)], but not in ACPA-negative CSA-patients [0.8(0.4-1.7)]. CONCLUSION: Approximately a quarter of CSA patients have IMB, which is frequently accompanied by subclinical synovitis and tenosynovitis. IMB precedes development of clinical arthritis, particularly in ACPA-positive CSA. These results reinforce the notion that juxta-articular synovial inflammation is involved in the earliest phases of RA development.

An ultrasound negative for subclinical synovitis in arthralgia patients: is it helpful in identifying those not developing arthritis?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the negative predictive value (NPV) of musculoskeletal US (MSUS) in arthralgia patients at risk for developing inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: An MSUS examination of hands and feet was performed in arthralgia patients at risk for inflammatory arthritis in four independent cohorts. Patients were followed for one-year on the development of inflammatory arthritis. Subclinical synovitis was defined as greyscale ≥2 and/or power Doppler ≥1. NPVs were determined and compared with the prior risks of not developing inflammatory arthritis. Outcomes were pooled using meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses. In sensitivity analyses, MSUS imaging of tender joints only (rather than the full US protocol) was analysed and ACPA stratification applied. RESULTS: After 1 year 78, 82, 77 and 72% of patients in the four cohorts did not develop inflammatory arthritis. The NPV of a negative US was 86, 85, 82 and 90%, respectively. The meta-analysis showed a pooled non-inflammatory arthritis prevalence of 79% (95% CI 75%, 83%) and a pooled NPV of 86% (95% CI 81, 89%). Imaging tender joints only (as generally done in clinical practice) and ACPA stratification showed similar results. CONCLUSION: A negative US result in arthralgia has a high NPV for not developing inflammatory arthritis, which is mainly due to the high a priori risk of not developing inflammatory arthritis. The added value of a negative US (<10% increase) was limited.

Determinants of sexual function in male patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to describe the association between SLE and sexual function, analysing demographic variables, comorbidities and other disease-related factors. As an exploratory objective, the impact of asking about sexual function during outpatient consultation was evaluated. METHODS: From 2018 to 2019, we invited sexually active men diagnosed with SLE to complete questionnaires that evaluated their sexual function and quality of life. Additionally, patients were asked if they believed they had sexual dysfunction, whether they would be interested in receiving specialized sexual care, and if they considered SLE to be detrimental to their sexual function. Epidemiological and disease-related data were retrieved from the patients' clinical records. RESULTS: We included 124 men with SLE. Twenty-two (18%) patients answered positively when asked if they believed they had sexual dysfunction. These patients had lower overall erectile function scores and lower physical function scores than those who did not consider they had sexual dysfunction. In the multivariable analysis, factors that were associated with better sexual function were high physical function (B = 0.126, p = .031), lower BMI (B = 0.53, p = .010) and the patient's perception of normal sexual function (B = 13.0, p < .001). Comorbidities associated with worse sexual function were type 2 diabetes (B = -8.1, p = .017) and a history of thrombosis (B = -5.12, p = .019). CONCLUSION: Sexual function of male patients with SLE is impaired, independently of disease activity, chronic disease damage or pharmacological treatment. A simple question about perception of sexual function in the outpatient clinic can be used to help determine which patients could benefit from a multidisciplinary intervention to improve sexual health.

The susceptibility of attaining and maintaining DMARD-free remission in different (rheumatoid) arthritis phenotypes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare (sustained) DMARD-free remission rates((S)DFR), defined as respectively ≥6 months and >1 year, after 2 and 5 years between three clinical arthritis phenotypes; undifferentiated arthritis(UA), autoantibody-negative(RA-) and positive rheumatoid arthritis(RA+). METHODS: All UA(n = 130), RA-(n = 176) and RA + (n = 331) patients from the tREACH trial, a stratified single-blinded trial with a treat-to-target approach, were used. (S)DFR comparisons between phenotypes after 2 and 5 years were performed with Logistic regression. Medication use and early and late flares(DAS ≥ 2.4), respectively defined as < 12 and >12 months after reaching DFR, were also compared. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate potential predictors for (S)DFR. RESULTS: Within 2 and 5 years less DFR was seen in RA + (17.2-25.7%), followed by RA-(28.4-42.1%) and UA patients(43.1-58.5%). This also applied for SDFR within 2 and 5 years (respectively 7.6% and 21.4%; 20.5% and 38.1%; and 35.4% and 55.4%). A flare during tapering was seen in 22.7% of patients. Of the patients in DFR 7.5% had an early flare and 3.4% a late flare. Also more treatment intensifications occurred in RA+ compared with RA- and UA. We found that higher baseline DAS, ACPA positivity, BMI and smoking were negatively associated with (S)DFR, while clinical phenotype(reference RA+), short symptom duration(<6 months) and remission within 6 months were positively associated. CONCLUSIONS: (Long-term) clinical outcomes differ between undifferentiated arthritis, autoantibody-negative and positive rheumatoid arthritis(RA). These data reconfirm that RA can be subdivided into aforementioned clinical phenotypes and that treatment might be stratified upon these phenotypes, although validation is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, https://www.isrctn.com/, ISRCTN26791028.

Tapering towards DMARD-free remission in established rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year results of the TARA trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the 2-year clinical effectiveness of two gradual tapering strategies. The first strategy consisted of tapering the conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) first (i.e., methotrexate in ~90%), followed by the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-inhibitor), the second strategy consisted of tapering the TNF-inhibitor first, followed by the csDMARD. METHODS: This multicentre single-blinded randomised controlled trial included patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with well-controlled disease for ≥3 consecutive months, defined as a Disease Activity Score (DAS) measured in 44 joints ≤2.4 and a swollen joint count ≤1, which was achieved with a csDMARD and a TNF-inhibitor. Eligible patients were randomised into gradual tapering the csDMARD followed by the TNF-inhibitor, or vice versa. The primary outcome was the number of disease flares. Secondary outcomes were DMARD-free remission (DFR), DAS, functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) and radiographic progression. RESULTS: 189 patients were randomly assigned to tapering their csDMARD (n=94) or TNF-inhibitor (n=95) first. The cumulative flare rate after 24 months was, respectively, 61% (95% CI 50% to 71%) and 62% (95% CI 52% to 72%). The patients who tapered their csDMARD first were more often able to go through the entire tapering protocol and reached DFR more often than the group that tapered the TNF-inhibitor first (32% vs 20% (p=0.12) and 21% vs 10% (p=0.07), respectively). Mean DAS and HAQ-DI over time, and radiographic progression did not differ between groups (p=0.45, p=0.17, p=0.8, respectively). CONCLUSION: The order of tapering did not affect flare rates, DAS or HAQ-DI. DFR was achievable in 15% of patients with established RA, slightly more frequent in patients that first tapered csDMARDs. Because of similar effects from a clinical viewpoint, financial arguments may influence the decision to taper TNF-inhibitors first.

Two-year cost effectiveness between two gradual tapering strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: cost-utility analysis of the TARA trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the 2-year cost-utility ratio between tapering conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) first followed by the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two-year data of the Tapering strategies in Rheumatoid Arthritis trial were used. Patients with RA, who used both a csDMARD and a TNF-inhibitor and had a well-controlled disease (disease activity score ≤2.4 and swollen joint count≤1) for at least 3 months, were randomised into gradual tapering the csDMARD first followed by the TNF-inhibitor, or vice versa. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of life questionnaire with 5 dimensions. Healthcare and productivity costs were calculated with data from patient records and questionnaires. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the incremental net monetary benefit were used to assess cost effectiveness between both tapering strategies. RESULTS: 94 patients started tapering their TNF-inhibitor first, while the other 95 tapered their csDMARD first. QALYs (SD) were, respectively, 1.64 (0.22) and 1.65 (0.22). Medication costs were significantly lower in the patients who tapered the TNF-inhibitor first, while indirect cost were higher due to more productivity loss (p=0.10). Therefore, total costs (SD) were €38 833 (€39 616) for tapering csDMARDs first, and €39 442 (€47 271) for tapering the TNF-inhibitor (p=0.88). For willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels <€83 800 tapering, the csDMARD first has the highest probability of being cost effective, while for WTP levels >€83 800 tapering the TNF-inhibitor first has the highest probability. CONCLUSION: Our economic evaluation shows that costs are similar for both tapering strategies. Regardless of the WTP, tapering either the TNF-inhibitor or the csDMARD first is equally cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2754.

Extracellular Matrix Analysis of Human Renal Arteries in Both Quiescent and Active Vascular State.

In vascular tissue engineering strategies, the addition of vascular-specific extracellular matrix (ECM) components may better mimic the in vivo microenvironment and potentially enhance cell-matrix interactions and subsequent tissue growth. For this purpose, the exact composition of the human vascular ECM first needs to be fully characterized. Most research has focused on characterizing ECM components in mature vascular tissue; however, the developing fetal ECM matches the active environment required in vascular tissue engineering more closely. Consequently, we characterized the ECM protein composition of active (fetal) and quiescent (mature) renal arteries using a proteome analysis of decellularized tissue. The obtained human fetal renal artery ECM proteome dataset contains higher levels of 15 ECM proteins versus the mature renal artery ECM proteome, whereas 16 ECM proteins showed higher levels in the mature tissue compared to fetal. Elastic ECM proteins EMILIN1 and FBN1 are significantly enriched in fetal renal arteries and are mainly produced by cells of mesenchymal origin. We functionally tested the role of EMILIN1 and FBN1 by anchoring the ECM secreted by vascular smooth muscle cells (SMCs) to glass coverslips. This ECM layer was depleted from either EMILIN1 or FBN1 by using siRNA targeting of the SMCs. Cultured endothelial cells (ECs) on this modified ECM layer showed alterations on the transcriptome level of multiple pathways, especially the Rho GTPase controlled pathways. However, no significant alterations in adhesion, migration or proliferation were observed when ECs were cultured on EMILIN1- or FNB1-deficient ECM. To conclude, the proteome analysis identified unique ECM proteins involved in the embryonic development of renal arteries. Alterations in transcriptome levels of ECs cultured on EMILIN1- or FBN1-deficient ECM showed that these candidate proteins could affect the endothelial (regenerative) response.

Gradual tapering TNF inhibitors versus conventional synthetic DMARDs after achieving controlled disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: first-year results of the randomised controlled TARA study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of two tapering strategies after achieving controlled disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), during 1 year of follow-up. METHODS: In this multicentre single-blinded (research nurses) randomised controlled trial, patients with RA were included who achieved controlled disease, defined as a Disease Activity Score (DAS) ≤ 2.4 and a Swollen Joint Count (SJC) ≤ 1, treated with both a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) and a TNF inhibitor. Eligible patients were randomised into gradual tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors. Medication was tapered if the RA was still under control, by cutting the dosage into half, a quarter and thereafter it was stopped. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with a disease flare, defined as DAS > 2.4 and/or SJC > 1. Secondary outcomes were DAS, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ5D) and functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index [HAQ-DI]) after 1 year and over time. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to tapering csDMARDs (n = 94) or tapering anti-TNF (n = 95). The cumulative flare rates in the csDMARD and anti-TNF tapering group were, respectively, 33 % (95% CI,24% to 43 %) and 43 % (95% CI, 33% to 53 % (p = 0.17). Mean DAS, HAQ-DI and EQ-5D did not differ between tapering groups after 1 year and over time. CONCLUSION: Up to 9 months, flare rates of tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors were similar. After 1 year, a non-significant difference was found of 10 % favouring csDMARD tapering. Tapering TNF inhibitors was, therefore, not superior to tapering csDMARDs. From a societal perspective, it would be sensible to taper the TNF inhibitor first, because of possible cost reductions and less long-term side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2754.