TYPE I COLLAGEN DEGRADATION PRODUCT IN SERUM OF PATIENTS WITH EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: RELATIONSHIP TO DISEASE ACTIVITY AND RADIOLOGICAL PROGRESSION IN A 3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Rheumatology ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 1012-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. PAIMELA ◽  
M. LEIRISALO-REPO ◽  
L. RISTELI ◽  
M. HAKALA ◽  
T. HELVE ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Stockfelt ◽  
Anna-Carin Lundell ◽  
Merete Lund Hetland ◽  
Mikkel Østergaard ◽  
Till Uhlig ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The type I interferon (IFN) gene signature is present in a subgroup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Protein levels of IFNα have not been measured in RA and it is unknown whether they associate with clinical characteristics or treatment effect. Methods Patients with early untreated RA (n = 347) were randomized to methotrexate combined with prednisone, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Plasma IFNα protein levels were determined by single molecular array (Simoa) before and 24 weeks after treatment initiation and were related to demographic and clinical factors including clinical disease activity index, disease activity score in 28 joints, swollen and tender joint counts, and patient global assessment. Results IFNα protein positivity was found in 26% of the patients, and of these, 92% were double-positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA). IFNα protein levels were reduced 24 weeks after treatment initiation, and the absolute change was similar irrespective of treatment. IFNα protein positivity was associated neither with disease activity nor with achievement of CDAI remission 24 weeks after randomization. Conclusion IFNα protein positivity is present in a subgroup of patients with early RA and associates with double-positivity for autoantibodies but not with disease activity. Pre-treatment IFNα positivity did not predict remission in any of the treatment arms, suggesting that the IFNα system is distinct from the pathways of TNF, IL-6, and T-cell activation in early RA. A spin-off study of the NORD-STAR randomized clinical trial, NCT01491815 (ClinicalTrials), registered 12/08/2011, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01491815.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 561.2-562
Author(s):  
X. Liu ◽  
Z. Sun ◽  
W. Guo ◽  
F. Wang ◽  
L. Song ◽  
...  

Background:Experts emphasize early diagnosis and treatment in RA, but the widely used diagnostic criterias fail to meet the accurate judgment of early rheumatoid arthritis. In 2012, Professor Zhanguo Li took the lead in establishing ERA “Chinese standard”, and its sensitivity and accuracy have been recognized by peers. However, the optimal first-line treatment of patients (pts) with undifferentiated arthritis (UA), early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are yet to be established.Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Iguratimod-based (IGU-based) Strategy in the above three types of pts, and to explore the characteristics of the effects of IGU monotherapy and combined treatment.Methods:This prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01548001) was conducted in China. In this phase 4 study pts with RA (ACR 1987 criteria[1]), ERA (not match ACR 1987 criteria[1] but match ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria[2] or 2014 ERA criteria[3]), UA (not match classification criteria for ERA and RA but imaging suggests synovitis) were recruited. We applied different treatments according to the patient’s disease activity at baseline, including IGU monotherapy and combination therapies with methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and prednisone. Specifically, pts with LDA and fewer poor prognostic factors were entered the IGU monotherapy group (25 mg bid), and pts with high disease activity were assigned to combination groups. A Chi-square test was applied for comparison. The primary outcomes were the proportion of pts in remission (REM)or low disease activity (LDA) that is DAS28-ESR<2.6 or 3.2 at 24 weeks, as well as the proportion of pts, achieved ACR20, Boolean remission, and good or moderate EULAR response (G+M).Results:A total of 313 pts (26 pts with UA, 59 pts with ERA, and 228 pts with RA) were included in this study. Of these, 227/313 (72.5%) pts completed the 24-week follow-up. The results showed that 115/227 (50.7%), 174/227 (76.7%), 77/227 (33.9%), 179/227 (78.9%) pts achieved DAS28-ESR defined REM and LDA, ACR20, Boolean remission, G+M response, respectively. All parameters continued to decrease in all pts after treatment (Fig 1).Compared with baseline, the three highest decline indexes of disease activity at week 24 were SW28, CDAI, and T28, with an average decline rate of 73.8%, 61.4%, 58.7%, respectively. Results were similar in three cohorts.We performed a stratified analysis of which IGU treatment should be used in different cohorts. The study found that the proportion of pts with UA and ERA who used IGU monotherapy were significantly higher than those in the RA cohort. While the proportion of triple and quadruple combined use of IGU in RA pts was significantly higher than that of ERA and UA at baseline and whole-course (Fig 2).A total of 81/313 (25.8%) pts in this study had adverse events (AE) with no serious adverse events. The main adverse events were infection(25/313, 7.99%), gastrointestinal disorders(13/313, 4.15%), liver dysfunction(12/313, 3.83%) which were lower than 259/2666 (9.71%) in the previous Japanese phase IV study[4].The most common reasons of lost follow-up were: 1) discontinued after remission 25/86 (29.1%); 2) lost 22/86 (25.6%); 3) drug ineffective 19/86 (22.1%).Conclusion:Both IGU-based monotherapy and combined therapies are tolerant and effective for treating UA, ERA, and RA, while the decline in joint symptoms was most significant. Overall, IGU combination treatments were most used in RA pts, while monotherapy was predominant in ERA and UA pts.References:[1]Levin RW, et al. Scand J Rheumatol 1996, 25(5):277-281.[2]Kay J, et al. Rheumatology 2012, 51(Suppl 6):vi5-9.[3]Zhao J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014, 32(5):667-673.[4]Mimori T, et al. Mod Rheumatol 2019, 29(2):314-323.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (11) ◽  
pp. 2066-2070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sibel Yilmaz-Oner ◽  
Gulsen Ozen ◽  
Meryem Can ◽  
Pamir Atagunduz ◽  
Haner Direskeneli ◽  
...  

Objective.Remission is the primary aim in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In this study, we aimed to evaluate biomarker profiles of patients in remission by different criteria and compare these profiles with controls.Methods.Serum levels of calprotectin, interleukin 6 (IL-6), type II collagen helical peptide, C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide of type I collagen generated by matrix metalloproteinases (ICTP), matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP-3), resistin, and leptin were measured by ELISA in 80 patients. The patients were in Disease Activity Score at 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) remission, and had these characteristics: female/male 54/26, mean age 51.4 ± 12.1 years, mean disease duration 11.4 ± 8.1 years, rheumatoid factor positivity 68.7% (n = 55), anticyclic citrullinated peptide positivity 60.7% (n = 48). These patients were also evaluated for the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (Boolean) and Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remissions. Additionally, 80 age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched individuals without rheumatic diseases were included in the study as controls.Results.At recruitment of 80 patients in DAS28 remission, 33 patients (41.2%) were found in Boolean remission and 39 patients (48.7%) were in SDAI remission. Serum MMP-3, ICTP, resistin, and IL-6 levels of the 80 patients in DAS28 remission were statistically significantly higher than the controls. Patients in Boolean and SDAI remissions had significantly higher serum ICTP, resistin, and IL-6 levels in comparison with the controls.Conclusion.The 3 commonly used remission criteria of RA are almost similar with regard to patients’ biomarker levels. Biomarker profiles of patients may provide complementary information to clinical evaluation of remission and may help to determine the patients under the risk of progression.


1993 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 866-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Hakala ◽  
L Risteli ◽  
J Manelius ◽  
P Nieminen ◽  
J Risteli

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document