Five-year treat-to-target outcomes after methotrexate induction therapy with or without other csDMARDs and temporary glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis in the CareRA trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219825
Author(s):  
Veerle Stouten ◽  
René Westhovens ◽  
Sofia Pazmino ◽  
Diederik De Cock ◽  
Kristien Van der Elst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Longitudinal Models ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

ObjectivesTo compare outcomes of different treatment schedules from the care in early rheumatoid arthritis (CareRA) trial over 5 years.MethodsPatients with RA completing the 2-year CareRA randomised controlled trial were eligible for the 3-year observational CareRA-plus study. 5-year outcomes after randomisation to initial methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy with glucocorticoid bridging (COBRA-Slim) were compared with MTX step-up without glucocorticoids or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations with glucocorticoid bridging, per prognostic patient group. Disease activity (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints calculated with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP)) and functionality (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)) were compared between treatment arms using longitudinal models; safety and drug use were detailed.ResultsOf 322 eligible patients, 252 (78%) entered CareRA-plus, of which 203 (81%) completed the study. Treatments for high-risk patients resulted in comparable DAS28-CRP (p=0.539) and HAQ scores over 5 years (p=0.374). Low-risk patients starting COBRA-Slim had lower DAS28-CRP (p<0.001) and HAQ scores (p=0.041) than those starting only on MTX. At study completion, 114/203 (56%) patients never had their original DMARD therapy intensified, with comparable rates between all treatments. Safety was comparable between treatments in high-risk patients. In low-risk patients, there were 18 adverse events in 10 COBRA-Slim and 36 in 17 patients treated with initial MTX monotherapy (p=0.048). Over 5 years, 22% of patients initiated biologics, 25% took glucocorticoids for >3 months and 17% for >6 months outside the bridging period.ConclusionsAll intensive treatments with glucocorticoids bridging demonstrated excellent 5 year outcomes. Initiating COBRA-Slim was comparably effective as more complex treatments for high-risk patients with early RA and more effective than initial MTX monotherapy for low-risk patients with limited need for biologics and chronic glucocorticoid use.

scholarly journals Methotrexate in combination with other DMARDs is not superior to methotrexate alone for remission induction with moderate-to-high-dose glucocorticoid bridging in early rheumatoid arthritis after 16 weeks of treatment: the CareRA trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Verschueren ◽  
D De Cock ◽  
L Corluy ◽  
R Joos ◽  
C Langenaken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Remission Induction ◽  
Avant Garde ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Step Down

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of intensive combination strategies with glucocorticoids (GCs) in the first 16 weeks (W) of early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) treatment, focusing on high-risk patients, in the Care in early RA trial.Methods400 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive patients with eRA were recruited and stratified into high risk or low risk according to classical prognostic markers. High-risk patients (n=290) were randomised to 1/3 treatment strategies: combination therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis (COBRA) Classic (methotrexate (MTX)+ sulfasalazine+60 mg prednisone tapered to 7.5 mg daily from W7), COBRA Slim (MTX+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6) and COBRA Avant-Garde (MTX+leflunomide+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6). Treatment modifications to target low-disease activity were mandatory from W8, if desirable and feasible according to the rheumatologist. The primary outcome was remission (28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein <2.6) at W16 (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints were good European League Against Rheumatism response, clinically meaningful health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) response and HAQ equal to zero. Adverse events (AEs) were registered.ResultsData from 98 Classic, 98 Slim and 94 Avant-Garde patients were analysed. At W16, remission was reached in 70.4% Classic, 73.6% Slim and 68.1% Avant-Garde patients (p=0.713). Likewise, no significant differences were shown in other secondary endpoints. However, therapy-related AEs were reported in 61.2% of Classic, in 46.9% of Slim and in 69.1% of Avant-Garde patients (p=0.006).ConclusionsFor high-risk eRA, MTX associated with a moderate step-down dose of GCs was as effective in inducing remission at W16 as DMARD combination therapies with moderate or high step-down GC doses and it showed a more favourable short-term safety profile.EudraCT number:2008-007225-39.

scholarly journals Protocol for a multinational risk-stratified randomised controlled trial in paediatric Crohn’s disease: methotrexate versus azathioprine or adalimumab for maintaining remission in patients at low or high risk for aggressive disease course

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e034892
Author(s):  
Rachel E Harris ◽  
Marina Aloi ◽  
Lissy de Ridder ◽  
Nicholas M Croft ◽  
Sibylle Koletzko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Paediatric Crohn’S Disease

IntroductionImmunomodulators such as thiopurines (azathioprine (AZA)/6-mercaptopurine (6MP)), methotrexate (MTX) and biologics such as adalimumab (ADA) are well established for maintenance of remission within paediatric Crohn’s disease (CD). It remains unclear, however, which maintenance medication should be used first line in specific patient groups.AimsTo compare the efficacy of maintenance therapies in newly diagnosed CD based on stratification into high and low-risk groups for severe CD evolution; MTX versus AZA/6MP in low-risk and MTX versus ADA in high-risk patients. Primary end point: sustained remission at 12 months (weighted paediatric CD activity index ≤12.5 and C reactive protein ≤1.5 fold upper limit) without relapse or ongoing requirement for exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN)/steroids 12 weeks after treatment initiation.Methods and analysisREDUCE-RISK in CD is an international multicentre open-label prospective randomised controlled trial funded by EU within the Horizon2020 framework (grant number 668023). Eligible patients (aged 6–17 years, new-onset disease receiving steroids or EEN for induction of remission for luminal ± perianal CD are stratified into low and high-risk groups based on phenotype and response to induction therapy. Participants are randomised to one of two treatment arms within their risk group: low-risk patients to weekly subcutaneous MTX or daily oral AZA/6MP, and high-risk patients to weekly subcutaneous MTX or fortnightly ADA. Patients are followed up for 12 months at prespecified intervals. Electronic case report forms are completed prospectively. The study aims to recruit 312 participants (176 low risk; 136 high risk).Ethics and disseminationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: (NCT02852694), authorisation and approval from local ethics committees have been obtained prior to recruitment. Individual informed consent will be obtained prior to participation in the study. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal with open access.Trial registration numberNCT02852694; Pre-results.

Effectiveness of methotrexate with step-down glucocorticoid remission induction (COBRA Slim) versus other intensive treatment strategies for early rheumatoid arthritis in a treat-to-target approach: 1-year results of CareRA, a randomised pragmatic open-label superiority trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Verschueren ◽  
Diederik De Cock ◽  
Luk Corluy ◽  
Rik Joos ◽  
Christine Langenaken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Remission Induction ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Avant Garde ◽  
Superiority Trial ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Step Down

ObjectivesCombining disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with glucocorticoids (GCs) is an effective treatment strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), yet the ideal schedule and feasibility in daily practice are debated. We evaluated different DMARD combinations and GC remission induction schemes in poor prognosis patients; and methotrexate (MTX) with or without GC remission induction in good prognosis patients, during the first treatment year.MethodsThe Care in ERA (CareRA) trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated randomised pragmatic open-label superiority trial comparing remission induction regimens in a treat-to-target approach. DMARD-inexperienced patients with ERA were stratified into a high-risk or low-risk group based upon presence of erosions, disease activity, rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibodies. High-risk patients were randomised to a COBRA Classic (MTX + sulfasalazine + prednisone step-down from 60 mg), COBRA Slim (MTX + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) or COBRA Avant Garde (MTX + leflunomide + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) scheme. Low-risk patients were randomised to MTX tight step-up (MTX-TSU) or COBRA Slim. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients in 28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein remission at week 52 in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes were safety and effectiveness (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT01172639).Results98 COBRA Classic, 98 COBRA Slim (high risk), 93 COBRA Avant Garde, 47 MTX-TSU and 43 COBRA Slim (low risk) patients were evaluated. Remission was achieved in 64.3% (63/98) COBRA Classic, 60.2% (59/98) COBRA Slim (high risk) and 62.4% (58/93) COBRA Avant Garde patients at W52 (p=0.840); and in 57.4% (27/47) MTX-TSU and 67.4% (29/43) COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.329). Less adverse events occurred per patient with COBRA Slim (high risk) compared with COBRA Classic or COBRA Avant Garde (p=0.038). Adverse events were similar in MTX-TSU and COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.871). At W52, 76.0% patients were on DMARD monotherapy, 5.2% used GCs and 7.5% biologicals.ConclusionsMTX with a moderate-dose GC remission induction scheme (COBRA Slim) seems an effective, safe, low-cost and feasible initial treatment strategy for patients with ERA regardless of their prognostic profile, provided a treat-to-target approach is followed.Trial registration numbersEudraCT-number 2008-007225-39 and NCT01172639; Results.

scholarly journals Accuracy of upper endoscopies with random biopsies to identify patients with gastric premalignant lesions who can safely be exempt from surveillance

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 680-690
Author(s):  
Michiel C. Mommersteeg ◽  
Stella A. V. Nieuwenburg ◽  
Wouter J. den Hollander ◽  
Lisanne Holster ◽  
Caroline M. den Hoed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Premalignant Lesions ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
European Guidelines ◽  
Progression Of Disease ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Progression Risk

Abstract Introduction Guidelines recommend endoscopy with biopsies to stratify patients with gastric premalignant lesions (GPL) to high and low progression risk. High-risk patients are recommended to undergo surveillance. We aimed to assess the accuracy of guideline recommendations to identify low-risk patients, who can safely be discharged from surveillance. Methods This study includes patients with GPL. Patients underwent at least two endoscopies with an interval of 1–6 years. Patients were defined ‘low risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for discharge, and ‘high risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for surveillance, according to European guidelines (MAPS-2012, updated MAPS-2019, BSG). Patients defined ‘low risk’ with progression of disease during follow-up (FU) were considered ‘misclassified’ as low risk. Results 334 patients (median age 60 years IQR11; 48.7% male) were included and followed for a median of 48 months. At baseline, 181/334 (54%) patients were defined low risk. Of these, 32.6% were ‘misclassified’, showing progression of disease during FU. If MAPS-2019 were followed, 169/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.5% were ‘misclassified’. If BSG were followed, 174/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.2% were ‘misclassified’. Seven patients developed gastric cancer (GC) or dysplasia, four patients were ‘misclassified’ based on MAPS-2012 and three on MAPS-2019 and BSG. By performing one additional endoscopy 72.9% (95% CI 62.4–83.3) of high-risk patients and all patients who developed GC or dysplasia were identified. Conclusion One-third of patients that would have been discharged from GC surveillance, appeared to be ‘misclassified’ as low risk. One additional endoscopy will reduce this risk by 70%.

scholarly journals A Novel Epigenetic Machine Learning Model to Define Risk of Progression for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 1075
Author(s):  
Luca Bedon ◽  
Michele Dal Bo ◽  
Monica Mossenta ◽  
Davide Busato ◽  
Giuseppe Toffoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Functional Enrichment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Risk Patients

Although extensive advancements have been made in treatment against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the prognosis of HCC patients remains unsatisfied. It is now clearly established that extensive epigenetic changes act as a driver in human tumors. This study exploits HCC epigenetic deregulation to define a novel prognostic model for monitoring the progression of HCC. We analyzed the genome-wide DNA methylation profile of 374 primary tumor specimens using the Illumina 450 K array data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. We initially used a novel combination of Machine Learning algorithms (Recursive Features Selection, Boruta) to capture early tumor progression features. The subsets of probes obtained were used to train and validate Random Forest models to predict a Progression Free Survival greater or less than 6 months. The model based on 34 epigenetic probes showed the best performance, scoring 0.80 accuracy and 0.51 Matthews Correlation Coefficient on testset. Then, we generated and validated a progression signature based on 4 methylation probes capable of stratifying HCC patients at high and low risk of progression. Survival analysis showed that high risk patients are characterized by a poorer progression free survival compared to low risk patients. Moreover, decision curve analysis confirmed the strength of this predictive tool over conventional clinical parameters. Functional enrichment analysis highlighted that high risk patients differentiated themselves by the upregulation of proliferative pathways. Ultimately, we propose the oncogenic MCM2 gene as a methylation-driven gene of which the representative epigenetic markers could serve both as predictive and prognostic markers. Briefly, our work provides several potential HCC progression epigenetic biomarkers as well as a new signature that may enhance patients surveillance and advances in personalized treatment.

scholarly journals Does socioeconomic status make a difference? A register-based study on the extent to which cardiovascular screening in patients with inflammatory arthritis leads to recommended follow-up in general practice

RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e000940
Author(s):  
Anette Hvenegaard Kjeldgaard ◽  
Kim Hørslev-Petersen ◽  
Sonja Wehberg ◽  
Jens Soendergaard ◽  
Jette Primdahl
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Risk Patients

ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) follow recommendations given in a secondary care nurse-led cardiovascular (CV) risk screening consultation to consult their general practitioner (GP) to reduce their CV risk and whether their socioeconomic status (SES) affects adherence.MethodsAdults with IA who had participated in a secondary care screening consultation from July 2012 to July 2015, based on the EULAR recommendations, were identified. Patients were considered to have high CV risk if they had risk Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%, according to the European SCORE model or systolic blood pressure ≥145 mmHg, total cholesterol ≥8 mmol/L, LDL cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L, HbA1c ≥42 mmol/mol or fasting glucose ≥6 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a consultation with their GP and at least one action focusing on CV risk factors within 6 weeks after the screening consultation.ResultsThe study comprised 1265 patients, aged 18–85 years. Of these, 336/447 (75%) of the high-risk patients and 580/819 (71%) of the low-risk patients had a GP consultation. 127/336 (38%) of high-risk patients and 160/580 (28%) of low-risk patients received relevant actions related to their CV risk, for example, blood pressure home measurement or prescription for statins, antihypertensives or antidiabetics. Education ≥10 years increased the odds for non-adherence (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.0.37 to 0.92, p=0.02).Conclusions75% of the high-risk patients consulted their GP after the secondary care CV risk screening, and 38% of these received an action relevant for their CV risk. Higher education decreased adherence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document