The Efficacy of Short-Term Bridging Strategies With High- and Low-Dose Prednisolone on Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes in Active Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In active early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids are often used for bridging, due to the delayed action of methotrexate. This study was undertaken to compare the effect of 3 bridging strategies, including high-dose and low-dose prednisolone, on radiographic and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Adult RA patients from 1 rheumatology hospital and 23 rheumatology practices who presented with moderate/high disease activity were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 60 mg prednisolone (high-dose prednisolone [HDP]) or 10 mg prednisolone (low-dose prednisolone [LDP]) daily (tapered to 0 mg within 12 weeks) or placebo. The 12-week intervention period was followed by 40 weeks of therapy at the physicians' discretion. The primary outcome measure was radiographic change at 1 year measured using the total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS). Disease activity was assessed with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). RESULTS: Of 395 randomized patients (HDP, n = 132; LDP, n = 131; placebo, n = 132), 375 (95%) remained in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Mean ± SD changes in SHS scores in the 3 groups after 1 year were comparable: mean ± SD 1.0 ± 2.0 units in the HDP group, 1.1 ± 2.2 units in the LDP group, and 1.1 ± 1.5 units in the placebo group. The primary analysis showed no superiority of HDP compared to placebo (estimated difference of the mean change -0.04 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.5, 0.4]). At week 12, the mean DAS28-ESR differed: -0.6 (95% CI -1.0, -0.2) for HDP versus placebo; -0.8 (95% CI -1.2, -0.5) for LDP versus placebo. At week 52, there was no significant difference in DAS28-ESR between the 3 groups (range 2.6-2.8). Serious adverse events occurred similarly often. CONCLUSION: Short-term glucocorticoid bridging therapy at a high dose showed no benefit with regard to progression of radiographic damage at 1 year.

The Structured Delegation of Medical Care Services for Patients With Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

BACKGROUND: In some areas of Germany, there is a shortage of specialist physicians for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Delegating certain medical care services to qualified, specialized rheumatological assistants (SRAs) might be an effective way to supplement the available capacity for specialized medical care. METHODS: Patients under stable treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were included in this trial, which was designed to demonstrate, in a first step, the non-inferiority of a form of care involving delegation of physicians' tasks to SRAs (team-based care), in comparison to standard care, with respect to changes in disease activity at one year. "Non-inferiority," in this context, means either superiority or else an irrelevant extent of inferiority. In a second step, in case non-inferiority could be shown, the superiority of team-based care with respect to changes in patients' health-related quality of life would be tested as well. Disease activity was measured with the Disease Activity Score 28, and health-related quality of life with the EQ-5D-5L. This was a randomized, multicenter, rater-blinded trial with two treatment arms (team-based care and standard care). The statistical analysis was performed with mixed linear models (DRKS00015526). RESULTS: From September 2018 to June 2019, 601 patients from 14 rheumatological practices and 3 outpatient rheumatological clinics in the German states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony were randomized to either team-based or standard care. Team-based care was found to be non-inferior to standard care with respect to changes in disease activity (adjusted difference = -0.19; 95% confidence interval [-0.36; -0.02]; p <0.001 for non-inferiority). Superiority with respect to health-related quality of life was not demonstrated (adjusted difference = 0.02 [-0.02; 0.05], p = 0.285). CONCLUSION: Team-based care, with greater integration of SRAs, is just as good as standard care in important respects. Trained SRAs can effectively support rheumatologists in the care of stable patients with RA or PsA.

Patients with fibromyalgia rarely fulfil classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis.

Background: The Assessments of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have been criticized because of insufficient differentiation towards FM. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of currently used classification criteria in patients diagnosed with axSpA or FM. Methods: Patients were prospectively included if diagnosed with axSpA or FM by the treating rheumatologist and evaluated by an independent examiner for fulfilment of the classification criteria for axSpA (ASAS criteria) and/or FM (1990 ACR classification and 2010 ACR diagnostic criteria). Patients with axSpA were stratified based on classification as non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) or AS. Symptom severity was assessed by established disease-related questionnaires. Results: Overall, 300 patients were included, 100 with FM and 200 with axSpA of which 100 each had nr-axSpA and AS. Almost all FM patients fulfilled the 2010 (100%) and 1990 ACR criteria (98%) for FM, but only 2% fulfilled the ASAS criteria. When calculations were based on only the FM patients with available HLA-B27 results (n = 40), the proportion fulfilling the ASAS criteria was 5%. All axSpA patients met the ASAS criteria but also the 2010 (24%) and 1990 (13.5%) FM criteria. More patients with AS (29% and 19%) than with nr-axSpA (19% and 8%) fulfilled the 2010 and 1990 FM criteria, respectively. Conclusion: FM patients only rarely fulfil classification criteria for axSpA but some axSpA patients also fulfil FM criteria. Since this was more frequent in patients with AS it may be related to the severity and duration of chronic pain in axSpA patients. Assessment instruments evaluated in axSpA are not disease-specific. The phenomenon of central pain sensitization in rheumatic diseases deserves more study.

Efficiency of treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs according to current recommendations in patients with radiographic and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: NSAIDs are first-line therapy in axial SpA (axSpA). The proportion of patients responding to NSAIDs and differences between AS and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) in this regard have not been studied in detail to date. The aim of this study was to examine the proportion of patients with AS and nr-axSpA responding to NSAIDs according to current treatment recommendations. METHODS: Consecutive anti-TNF-naïve patients with nr-axSpA and AS (n = 50 each) were included if their BASDAI score was ⩾4 without having received maximal NSAID doses. In case of a BASDAI score ⩾4 1 week later, another NSAID was prescribed. For the next 3 weeks, continuous intake of maximal doses was recommended but patients could reduce doses in case of intolerance or improvement. MRI of the SI joints was performed at baseline and week 4. RESULTS: All outcomes except for CRP and MRI scores improved significantly after 4 weeks of NSAIDs, with no difference between axSpA subgroups. An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40% (ASAS40) response and partial remission rates were 35 and 16% at week 4, respectively. At the same time point, a BASDAI score ⩾4 was still present in 44% of patients, 30% of which had reduced NSAID doses, partly due to intolerance (38%). Only 13% of all patients had continuously taken NSAIDs at the maximal dosage, but there was no difference in the efficacy outcome compared with those who had taken reduced doses. CONCLUSION: AS and nr-axSpA patients had similar response rates to NSAIDs while objective signs of inflammation did not change over 4 weeks. Only a minority of patients was willing to take maximal doses of NSAIDs, and ⩾40% patients remained candidates for TNF blockers. These results may influence future trial designs.

Update on biologic therapy in the management of axial spondyloarthritis.

Axial spondyloarthritis, which includes ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic spondyloarthritis, is an important subtype of the spondyloarthritides. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists are effective therapies for this partially heterogeneous group of rheumatic diseases in terms of signs, symptoms, and functioning, but they do not seem to substantially inhibit radiographic progression, which is mainly new bone formation in ankylosing spondylitis. However, they clearly reduce inflammation, as shown by MRI. TNF blockers are also efficacious in the treatment of extraspinal features of spondyloarthritis. In addition, evidence indicates that anti-TNF therapy works well in early axial disease. Other biologics are currently being investigated, as alternatives are needed for patients who fail anti-TNF therapy.