Jean-Pierre Raynauld

Treatment persistence is an important consideration when selecting a therapy for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the long-term persistence of abatacept or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) following (1) inadequate response to a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (first-line biologic agent) and (2) inadequate response to a first biologic DMARD (second-line biologic agent). Data were extracted from the Rhumadata® registry for patients with RA prescribed either abatacept or a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) who met the study selection criteria. The primary outcome was persistence to abatacept and TNFi treatment, as first- or second-line biologics. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy, reasons for discontinuation, and predictors of discontinuation. Persistence was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics; cumulative persistence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the persistence between treatments, controlling for baseline covariates. Overall, 705 patients met the selection criteria for first-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 92; TNFi, n = 613) and 317 patients met the criteria for second-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 105; TNFi, n = 212). There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatments with either first- or second-line biologics. Persistence was similar between the first-line biologic treatments (p = 0.7406) but significantly higher for abatacept compared with TNFi as a second-line biologic (p = 0.0001). Mean (SD) times on first-line biologic abatacept and TNFi use were 4.53 (0.41) and 5.35 (0.20) years, and 4.80 (0.45) and 2.82 (0.24) years, respectively, as second-line biologic agents. The proportion of patients discontinuing abatacept and TNFi in first-line was 51.1% vs. 59.5% (p = 0.1404), respectively. In second-line, it was 57.1% vs. 74.1% (p = 0.0031). The main reasons for stopping both treatments were inefficacy and adverse events. Abatacept and TNFi use demonstrated similar persistence rates at 9 years as a first-line biologic agent. As a second-line biologic agent, abatacept had better persistence rates over a TNFi.

The aim of this study was to measure the association between exposure to commonly used oral osteoarthritis (OA) therapies and relevant confounding risk factors on the occurrence of knee replacement (KR), using the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) database. In this nested case-control design study, participants who had a KR after cohort entry were defined as “cases” and were matched with up to four controls for age, gender, income, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, and duration of follow up. Exposure to oral OA therapies (acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, narcotics, and glucosamine/chondroitin sulfate) was determined within the 3 years prior to the date of the KR. Conditional regression analyses were performed to estimate the association between KR and exposure to oral OA therapies and other potential confounding risk factors. A total of 218 participants who underwent a KR (cases) were matched to 540 controls. The median time to KR was 4.3 years among cases. The majority in both groups were Caucasian with mean age of 69 years and 61% were female. Numerically, cases were more exposed to acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and COX-2 inhibitors. Exposure to narcotics and glucosamine/chondroitin sulfate was relatively similar between cases and controls. No significant association was found between the occurrence of KR and exposure to any of the oral OA therapies within the 3 years prior to KR. A significantly higher occurrence of KR was found in Caucasian subjects (OR 1.84; 95% CI, 1.13–2.99; p = 0.015) and subjects with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2 (OR 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06–2.58; p = 0.027). This study provides evidence that the main risk factors leading to KR are disease severity, symptoms and high BMI. Importantly, exposure to oral OA therapies was not associated with the occurrence of KR.

The weight of recommendation for intra-articular therapies such as hyaluronic acid injections varies from one set of guidelines to another, and they have not yet reached unanimity with respect to the usefulness of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) injections for the symptomatic treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Among the reasons for the controversy is that the current literature provides inconsistent results and conclusions about such treatment. This study aimed at identifying determinants associated with a better response to IAHA treatment in knee OA. Subjects were selected from the Osteoarthritis Initiative database. Participants were subjects who had radiographic OA, received one IAHA treatment, and had data on demographics and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at visits before (T0) and after (T1; within 6 months) treatment. Pain was analyzed for demographic, clinical, and imaging characteristics at T0 and change over time (T0 to T1). Subjects with WOMAC pain > 0 at T0 were subdivided into Low, Moderate, and High pain groups based on tertile analysis. Further analyses were done with the High pain group (score ≥ 8), which was divided into responders (improvement in pain ≥ 20%) and nonresponders (unchanged or worsening of pain). Participants (n = 310) received a total of 404 treatments (one per knee). In the Low and Moderate pain groups vs the High pain group, participants had significantly lower score at T0 (p < 0.001), and the Low vs High pain group had significantly lower BMI (p = 0.002), greater joint space width (JSW) (p = 0.010) and knee cartilage volume (p ≤ 0.009), and smaller synovial effusion (p = 0.033). In the High pain group, responders vs nonresponders were usually younger (p = 0.014), with greater cartilage volume in the medial compartment (p = 0.046), a trend toward greater JSW, and a significant improvement in all WOMAC scores (p < 0.001), while nonresponders showed worsening of symptoms. This study identified reliable predictive determinants that can distinguish patients who could best benefit from IAHA treatment: high levels of knee pain, younger, and less severe structural damage. These could be implemented in clinical practice as a useful guide for physicians.

There is an obvious need to identify biomarkers that could predict patient response to an osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. This post hoc study explored in a 2-year randomized controlled trial in patients with knee OA, the likelihood of some serum biomarkers to be associated with a better response to chondroitin sulfate in reducing cartilage volume loss. Eight biomarkers were studied: hyaluronic acid (HA), C reactive protein (CRP), adipsin, leptin, N-terminal propeptide of collagen IIα (PIIANP), C-terminal crosslinked telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-1), matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1), and MMP-3. Patients were treated with chondroitin sulfate (1200 mg/day; n = 57) or celecoxib (200 mg/day; n = 62). Serum biomarkers were measured at baseline. The cartilage volume at baseline and its loss at 2 years were assessed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Statistical analysis included analysis of covariance. As data from the original MOSAIC trial showed no differences in cartilage volume and loss in the lateral compartment of the knee joint between the two treatment groups in any comparison, only the medial compartment and its subregions were studied. Stratification according to the median biomarker levels was used to discriminate treatment effect. In patients with levels of biomarkers of inflammation (HA, leptin and adipsin) lower than the median, those treated with chondroitin sulfate demonstrated less cartilage volume loss in the medial compartment, condyle, and plateau (p ≤ 0.047). In contrast, patients treated with chondroitin sulfate with higher levels of MMP-1 and MMP-3, biomarkers of cartilage catabolism, had less cartilage volume loss in the medial compartment, condyle, and plateau (p ≤ 0.050). Patients with higher levels of PIIANP and CTX-1, biomarkers related to collagen anabolism and bone catabolism, respectively, had reduced cartilage volume loss in the medial condyle (p ≤ 0.026) in the chondroitin sulfate group. This study is suggestive of a potentially greater response to chondroitin sulfate treatment on cartilage volume loss in patients with knee OA with low level of inflammation and/or greater level of cartilage catabolism. This is a post hoc study. Original trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01354145 . Registered on 13 May 2011.

In osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, although chondroitin sulfate (CS) was found in a number of studies using radiography to have a structure-modifying effect, to date CS use is still under debate. A clinical study using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) is therefore of the utmost importance. Here we report data from a 24-month, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, comparative exploratory study of knee OA. The primary endpoint was to determine the effect of CS 1200 mg/day versus celecoxib 200 mg/day on cartilage volume loss (CVL) in the lateral compartment over time as measured by qMRI. Secondary endpoints included assessment of the OA structural changes and signs and symptoms of OA. qMRI was performed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. CVL, bone marrow lesion size, and synovial thickness were evaluated using qMRI. The primary statistical analysis was carried out on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 138) using chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney, and Student’s t tests and analysis of covariance. Analyses were also conducted on the according-to-protocol (ATP; n = 120) population. In the adjusted mITT analysis, compared with celecoxib treatment, patients treated with CS had a significant reduced CVL at 24 months in the medial compartment (celecoxib –8.1 % ± 4.2, CS –6.3 % ± 3.2; p = 0.018) and medial condyle (–7.7 % ± 4.7, –5.5 % ± 3.9; p = 0.008); no significant effect was seen in the lateral compartment. In the ATP population, CS reduced CVL in the medial compartment at 12 months (celecoxib –5.6 % ± 3.0, CS –4.5 % ± 2.6; p = 0.049) and 24 months (celecoxib –8.4 % ± 4.2, CS –6.6 % ± 3.3; p = 0.021), and in the medial condyle at 24 months (celocoxib –8.1 % ± 4.7, CS –5.7 % ± 4.0; p = 0.010). A trend towards a statistically reduced synovial thickness (celecoxib +17.96 ± 33.73 mm, CS –0.66 ± 22.72 mm; p = 0.076) in the medial suprapatellar bursa was observed in CS patients. Both groups experienced a marked reduction in the incidence of patients with joint swelling/effusion and in symptoms over time. Data showed similar good safety profiles including cardiovascular adverse events for both drugs. This study demonstrated, for the first time in a 2-year randomised controlled trial using qMRI, the superiority of CS over celecoxib at reducing CVL in knee OA patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01354145 . Registered 13 May 2011.

Introduction: To evaluate the impact of meniscal extrusion (Ext) on knee osteoarthritis (OA) structural progression and on response to strontium ranelate (SrRan) treatment at 36 months in patients with (+) or without (-) Ext, in association (+) or not (-) with bone marrow lesions (BML) in the medial compartment using X-rays (JSW) and qMRI. Methods: Patients from the qMRI substudy of the SEKOIA trial (SrRan 1 g/day, n = 113; SrRan 2 g/day, n = 105; placebo, n = 112) were stratified based on whether meniscal extrusion and/or BML were present or not in the medial compartment. Results: In the placebo group, Ext+ patients (n = 26) had more JSW loss (p = 0.002) and cartilage volume loss in the global knee (p = 0.034) and plateau (p = 0.005), and medial compartment (p = 0.0005) than Ext- patients (n = 86). Ext-BML+ patients (n = 18) demonstrated more JSW loss (p = 0.003) and cartilage volume loss in the global (p = 0.020) and medial femur (p = 0.055) than Ext-BML- (n = 68). Compared to Ext+ BML- (n = 14), Ext+ BML+ patients (n = 12) had more cartilage volume loss in the global femur (p = 0.028), with no change in JSW. The JSW loss (p = 0.0004) and cartilage volume loss (global knee, p = 0.033, medial compartment, p = 0.0005) were greater when Ext and BML were simultaneously present in the medial compartment. SrRan 2 g/day treatment demonstrated a reduction in OA knee structural progression with qMRI, but not with JSW, in which less cartilage volume loss was found in the plateaus (p = 0.007) in Ext+ patients (n = 15), and in the medial plateau (p = 0.046) in patients in whom both Ext and BML were co-localized. Conclusion: The findings of this study are novel and could have an impact on future strategies regarding clinical trials. Indeed, data first argue for a combined, cumulative effect of meniscal extrusion and bone marrow lesions on cartilage loss and, secondly, they showed that SrRan may have protective effects in OA patients with meniscal extrusion as well as when both meniscal extrusion and BML are co-localized.

Introduction: Pain in osteoarthritis (OA) has been classically attributed to joint structural damage. Disparity between the degree of radiographic structural damage and the severity of symptoms implies that factors other than the joint pathology itself contribute to the pain. Peripheral and central sensitization have been suggested as two of the underlying mechanisms that contribute to pain in OA. The aim of this study was to explore in symptomatic knee OA patients, the structural changes assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that could be used as markers of neuropathic pain (NP). Methods: This cross-sectional observational pilot study included 50 knee OA patients with moderate to severe pain (VAS ≥40) in the target knee. The presence of NP was determined based on the PainDETECT questionnaire. Among the 50 patients included, 25 had PainDETECT score ≤12 (unlikely NP), 9 had PainDETECT score between 13 and 18 (uncertain NP) and 16 had PainDETECT score ≥19 (likely NP). WOMAC, PainDETECT, and VAS pain scores as well as knee MRI were assessed. Results: Data showed no significant difference in demographic characteristics between the three groups. However, a positive and statistically significant association was found between the WOMAC pain (P P P = 0.007) and total (P P = 0.023), and PainDETECT scores. Although no difference was found in the cartilage volume between groups, the presence of meniscal extrusion in both medial (P = 0.006) and lateral (P = 0.023) compartments, and presence of meniscal tears in the lateral compartment (P = 0.011), were significantly associated with increasing PainDETECT score. Moreover, the presence of bone marrow lesions in the lateral plateau and the extent of the synovial membrane thickness in the lateral recess were associated with increasing PainDETECT scores (P = 0.032, P = 0.027, respectively). Conclusions: In this study, meniscal lesions, particularly extrusion, were found to be among the strongest risk factors for NP in knee OA patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01733277. Registered 16 November 2012.