Search

Objective: To evaluate to what extent radiographic features of knees and hips that are normally related to osteoarthritis (OA) represent characteristics of an individual in addition to OA severity. Methods: We studied a cohort of individuals (n == 1002) with very early signs of hip and knee OA, from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study. Baseline radiographs were evaluated by digital analyses, using Holy's and Knee Images Digital Analysis (KIDA) software, providing distinct quantitative measures of radiographic OA features. In addition, conventional Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grading was performed. Digital parameters were evaluated for correlations within participants between contralateral (left vs. right hip and left vs. right knee), ipsilateral (e.g. left hip vs. left knee), and diagonal joints (e.g. left hip vs. right knee). Analyses were performed separately for participants with KL grade 0-I and those with evident radiographic OA (KL grade II-III). Regression analyses determined whether demographic characteristics were related to radiographic features. Results: Correlations between digital parameters and KL grade were moderate, and within each KL grade large variation was found. Within participants strong correlations were found for digital parameters between joints in individuals with KL grade 0-I (R == 0.60-0.89), strongest for contralateral comparison, but no statistically significant correlations were found for participants with KL grade II-III. The demographic characteristics age, gender, height, and weight were, to a limited extent (R2 == 0.01-0.20) but statistically significant, related to radiographic characteristics. Conclusion: Using digital analyses of radiographic OA, strong correlations between joints within participants were found. These correlations diminished when OA became evident. This has implications for monitoring joint damage in (very) early OA with digital analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Innovative Medicine's Initiative Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway (IMI-APPROACH) knee osteoarthritis (OA) study, machine learning models were trained to predict the probability of structural progression (s-score), predefined as >0.3 mm/year joint space width (JSW) decrease and used as inclusion criterion. The current objective was to evaluate predicted and observed structural progression over 2 years according to different radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based structural parameters. Radiographs and MRI scans were acquired at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Radiographic (JSW, subchondral bone density, osteophytes), MRI quantitative (cartilage thickness), and MRI semiquantitative [SQ; cartilage damage, bone marrow lesions (BMLs), osteophytes] measurements were obtained. The number of progressors was calculated based on a change exceeding the smallest detectable change (SDC) for quantitative measures or a full SQ-score increase in any feature. Prediction of structural progression based on baseline s-scores and Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grades was analyzed using logistic regression. Among 237 participants, around 1 in 6 participants was a structural progressor based on the predefined JSW-threshold. The highest progression rate was seen for radiographic bone density (39%), MRI cartilage thickness (38%), and radiographic osteophyte size (35%). Baseline s-scores could only predict JSW progression parameters (most P>0.05), while KL grades could predict progression of most MRI-based and radiographic parameters (P<0.05). In conclusion, between 1/6 and 1/3 of participants showed structural progression during 2-year follow-up. KL scores were observed to outperform the machine-learning-based s-scores as progression predictor. The large amount of data collected, and the wide range of disease stage, can be used for further development of more sensitive and successful (whole joint) prediction models. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT03883568., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-22-949/coif). WW reports serving as an employee and shareholder of Chondrometrics GmbH and receiving consulting fees from Galapagos NV; MK reports consulting fees from Abbvie, Pfizer, Kiniksa, Flexion, Galapagos, Jansen, CHDR, Novartis, UCB, all paid to institution; FJB reports Funding from Gedeon Richter Plc., Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corporation (BMSIC), Sun Pharma Global FZE, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Cilag International N.V, Janssen Research & Development, Viela Bio, Inc., Astrazeneca AB, UCB BIOSCIENCES GMBH, UCB BIOPHARMA SPRL, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co.KG, Merck KGaA, Amgen, Inc., Novartis Farmacéutica, S.A., Boehringer Ingelheim España, S.A, CSL Behring, LLC, Glaxosmithkline Research & Development Limited, Pfizer Inc, Lilly S.A., Corbus Pharmaceuticals Inc., Biohope Scientific Solutions for Human Health S.L., Centrexion Therapeutics Corp., Sanofi, TEDEC-MEIJI FARMA S.A., Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd; IKH reports Research grant (ADVANCE) from Pfizer (payment to institution) and consulting fees from Novartis, outside of the submitted work; FB reports Institutional grants from TRB Chemedica and Pfizer. Consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bone Therapeutics, Cellprothera, Galapagos, Gilead, Grunenthal, GSK, Eli Lilly, MerckSerono, MSD, Nordic Bioscience, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Peptinov, 4P Pharma. Honoraria for lectures from Expanscience, Pfizer, Viatris. Payment for expert testimony from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Travel support from Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Stock owner of 4Moving Biotech and Peptinov; CHL reports employee of Merck KGaA at start of the study; FWR reports serving as a shareholder of Boston Imaging Core Lab (BICL), LLC and consultant to Calibr and Grünenthal. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent chronic condition. The subchondral bone plays an important role in onset and progression of OA making it a potential treatment target for disease-modifying therapeutic approaches. However, little is known about changes of periarticular bone mineral density (BMD) in OA and its relation to meniscal coverage and meniscal extrusion at the knee. Thus, the aim of this study was to describe periarticular BMD in the Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway (APPROACH) cohort at the knee and to analyze the association with structural disease severity, meniscal coverage and meniscal extrusion., Design: Quantitative CT (QCT), MRI and radiographic examinations were acquired in 275 patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). QCT was used to assess BMD at the femur and tibia, at the cortical bone plate (Cort) and at the epiphysis at three locations: subchondral (Sub), mid-epiphysis (Mid) and adjacent to the physis (Juxta). BMD was evaluated for the medial and lateral compartment separately and for subregions covered and not covered by the meniscus. Radiographs were used to determine the femorotibial angle and were evaluated according to the Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) system. Meniscal extrusion was assessed from 0 to 3., Results: Mean BMD differed significantly between each anatomic location at both the femur and tibia (p < 0.001) in patients with KL0. Tibial regions assumed to be covered with meniscus in patients with KL0 showed lower BMD at Sub (p < 0.001), equivalent BMD at Mid (p = 0.07) and higher BMD at Juxta (p < 0.001) subregions compared to regions not covered with meniscus. Knees with KL2-4 showed lower Sub (p = 0.03), Mid (p = 0.01) and Juxta (p < 0.05) BMD at the medial femur compared to KL0/1. Meniscal extrusion grade 2 and 3 was associated with greater BMD at the tibial Cort (p < 0.001, p = 0.007). Varus malalignment is associated with significant greater BMD at the medial femur and at the medial tibia at all anatomic locations., Conclusion: BMD within the epiphyses of the tibia and femur decreases with increasing distance from the articular surface. Knees with structural OA (KL2-4) exhibit greater cortical BMD values at the tibia and lower BMD at the femur at the subchondral level and levels beneath compared to KL0/1. BMD at the tibial cortical bone plate is greater in patients with meniscal extrusion grade 2/3., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest FWR is shareholder of Boston Imaging Core Lab. (BICL), LLC. He is consultant to Calibr and Grünenthal; RH is a member of the speakers bureau and a consultant of Siemens Healthineers, outside the submitted work. MK reports grants from IMI-APPROACH, during the conduct of the study; consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck-Serono, Kiniksa, Abbvie, Flexion, Galapagos, Jansen, CHDR, UCB, Novartis outside the submitted work and all paid to institution; FJB funding from Gedeon Richter Plc., Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corporation (BMSIC), Sun Pharma Global FZE, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Cilag International N·V, Janssen Research & Development, Viela Bio, Inc., Astrazeneca AB, UCB BIOSCIENCES GMBH, UCB BIOPHARMA SPRL, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co.KG, Merck KGaA, Amgen, Inc., Novartis Farmacéutica, S.A., Boehringer Ingelheim España, S.A, CSL Behring, LLC, Glaxosmithkline Research & Development Limited, Pfizer Inc., Lilly S.A., Corbus Pharmaceuticals Inc., Biohope Scientific Solutions for Human Health S.L., Centrexion Therapeutics Corp., Sanofi, MEIJI FARMA S.A., Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Grunenthal, Asofarma Mexico, Gebro Pharma, Roche, Galapagos, Regeneron; FB is shareholder of 4Moving Biotech and 4P,Pharma, reports personal fees from Boehringer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Merck Sereno, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Peptinov, TRB Chemedica, Viatris. WW is employee and shareholder of Chondrometrics GmbH. AL is employee of Servier. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the test-retest precision and to report the longitudinal change in cartilage thickness, the percentage of knees with progression and the predictive value of the machine-learning-estimated structural progression score (s-score) for cartilage thickness loss in the IMI-APPROACH cohort - an exploratory, 5-center, 2-year prospective follow-up cohort., Design: Quantitative cartilage morphology at baseline and at least one follow-up visit was available for 270 of the 297 IMI-APPROACH participants (78% females, age: 66.4 ± 7.1 years, body mass index (BMI): 28.1 ± 5.3 kg/m 2 , 55% with radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA)) from 1.5T or 3T MRI. Test-retest precision (root mean square coefficient of variation) was assessed from 34 participants. To define progressor knees, smallest detectable change (SDC) thresholds were computed from 11 participants with longitudinal test-retest scans. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of progression in femorotibial cartilage thickness (threshold: -211 μm) for the quartile with the highest vs the quartile with the lowest s-scores., Results: The test-retest precision was 69 μm for the entire femorotibial joint. Over 24 months, mean cartilage thickness loss in the entire femorotibial joint reached -174 μm (95% CI: [-207, -141] μm, 32.7% with progression). The s-score was not associated with 24-month progression rates by MRI (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: [0.52, 3.28])., Conclusion: IMI-APPROACH successfully enrolled participants with substantial cartilage thickness loss, although the machine-learning-estimated s-score was not observed to be predictive of cartilage thickness loss. IMI-APPROACH data will be used in subsequent analyses to evaluate the impact of clinical, imaging, biomechanical and biochemical biomarkers on cartilage thickness loss and to refine the machine-learning-based s-score., Gov Identification: NCT03883568., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis study used machine learning (ML) to predict structural and/or pain progression, expressed by a structural (S) and pain (P) predicted-progression score, to select patients from existing cohorts. This study evaluates the actual 2-year progression within the IMI-APPROACH, in relation to the predicted-progression scores., Methods: Actual structural progression was measured using minimum joint space width (minJSW). Actual pain (progression) was evaluated using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain questionnaire. Progression was presented as actual change (Δ) after 2 years, and as progression over 2 years based on a per patient fitted regression line using 0, 0.5, 1 and 2-year values. Differences in predicted-progression scores between actual progressors and non-progressors were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed and corresponding area under the curve (AUC) reported. Using Youden's index, optimal cut-offs were chosen to enable evaluation of both predicted-progression scores to identify actual progressors., Results: Actual structural progressors were initially assigned higher S predicted-progression scores compared with structural non-progressors. Likewise, actual pain progressors were assigned higher P predicted-progression scores compared with pain non-progressors. The AUC-ROC for the S predicted-progression score to identify actual structural progressors was poor (0.612 and 0.599 for Δ and regression minJSW, respectively). The AUC-ROC for the P predicted-progression score to identify actual pain progressors were good (0.817 and 0.830 for Δ and regression KOOS pain, respectively)., Conclusion: The S and P predicted-progression scores as provided by the ML models developed and used for the selection of IMI-APPROACH patients were to some degree able to distinguish between actual progressors and non-progressors., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03883568., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: The IMI-APPROACH cohort is an exploratory, 5-centre, 2-year prospective follow-up study of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Aim was to describe baseline multi-tissue semiquantitative MRI evaluation of index knees and to describe change for different MRI features based on number of subregion-approaches and change in maximum grades over a 24-month period., Methods: MRIs were acquired using 1.5 T or 3 T MRI systems and assessed using the semi-quantitative MRI OA Knee Scoring (MOAKS) system. MRIs were read at baseline and 24-months for cartilage damage, bone marrow lesions (BML), osteophytes, meniscal damage and extrusion, and Hoffa- and effusion-synovitis. In descriptive fashion, the frequencies of MRI features at baseline and change in these imaging biomarkers over time are presented for the entire sample in a subregional and maximum score approach for most features. Differences between knees without and with structural radiographic (R) OA are analyzed in addition., Results: Two hundred eighty-nine participants had readable baseline MRI examinations. Mean age was 66.6 ± 7.1 years and participants had a mean BMI of 28.1 ± 5.3 kg/m 2 . The majority (55.3%) of included knees had radiographic OA. Any change in total cartilage MOAKS score was observed in 53.1% considering full-grade changes only, and in 73.9% including full-grade and within-grade changes. Any medial cartilage progression was seen in 23.9% and any lateral progression on 22.1%. While for the medial and lateral compartments numbers of subregions with improvement and worsening of BMLs were very similar, for the PFJ more improvement was observed compared to worsening (15.5% vs. 9.0%). Including within grade changes, the number of knees showing BML worsening increased from 42.2% to 55.6%. While for some features 24-months change was rare, frequency of change was much more common in knees with vs. without ROA (e.g. worsening of total MOAKS score cartilage in 68.4% of ROA knees vs. 36.7% of no-ROA knees, and 60.7% vs. 21.8% for an increase in maximum BML score per knee)., Conclusions: A wide range of MRI-detected structural pathologies was present in the IMI-APPROACH cohort. Baseline prevalence and change of features was substantially more common in the ROA subgroup compared to the knees without ROA., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identification: NCT03883568., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a novel technique for relatively young knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. With KJD, an external distraction device creates temporary total absence of contact between cartilage surfaces, which results in pain relief and possibly limits the progression of knee OA. Recently, KJD showed similar clinical outcomes compared with high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Yet, no comparative data exist regarding return to sport (RTS) and return to work (RTW) after KJD. Therefore, our aim was to compare RTS and RTW between KJD and HTO. We performed a cross-sectional follow-up study in patients <65 years who previously participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing KJD and HTO. Out of 62 eligible patients, 55 patients responded and 51 completed the questionnaire (16 KJDs and 35 HTOs) at 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of RTS and RTW. Secondary outcome measures included time to RTS/RTW, and pre- and postoperative Tegner's (higher is more active), and Work Osteoarthritis or Joint-Replacement Questionnaire (WORQ) scores (higher is better work ability). Patients' baseline characteristics did not differ. Total 1 year after KJD, 79% returned to sport versus 80% after HTO (not significant [n.s.]). RTS <6 months was 73 and 75%, respectively (n.s.). RTW 1 year after KJD was 94 versus 97% after HTO (n.s.), and 91 versus 87% <6 months (n.s.). The median Tegner's score decreased from 5.0 to 3.5 after KJD, and from 5.0 to 3.0 after HTO (n.s.). The mean WORQ score improvement was higher after HTO (16 ± 16) than after KJD (6 ± 13; p  = 0.04). Thus, no differences were found for sport and work participation between KJD and HTO in our small, though first ever, cohort. Overall, these findings may support further investigation into KJD as a possible joint-preserving option for challenging "young" knee OA patients. The level of evidence is III., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Background: There are multiple measures for assessment of physical function in knee osteoarthritis (OA), but each has its strengths and limitations. The GaitSmart® system, which uses inertial measurement units (IMUs), might be a user-friendly and objective method to assess function. This study evaluates the validity and responsiveness of GaitSmart® motion analysis as a function measurement in knee OA and compares this to Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), 30s chair stand test, and 40m self-paced walk test., Methods: The 2-year Innovative Medicines Initiative-Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway (IMI-APPROACH) knee OA cohort was conducted between January 2018 and April 2021. For this study, available baseline and 6 months follow-up data (n = 262) was used. Principal component analysis was used to investigate whether above mentioned function instruments could represent one or more function domains. Subsequently, linear regression was used to explore the association between GaitSmart® parameters and those function domains. In addition, standardized response means, effect sizes and t-tests were calculated to evaluate the ability of GaitSmart® to differentiate between good and poor general health (based on SF-36). Lastly, the responsiveness of GaitSmart® to detect changes in function was determined., Results: KOOS, SF-36, 30s chair test and 40m self-paced walk test were first combined into one function domain (total function). Thereafter, two function domains were substracted related to either performance based (objective function) or self-reported (subjective function) function. Linear regression resulted in the highest R2 for the total function domain: 0.314 (R2 for objective and subjective function were 0.252 and 0.142, respectively.). Furthermore, GaitSmart® was able to distinguish a difference in general health status, and is responsive to changes in the different aspects of objective function (Standardized response mean (SRMs) up to 0.74)., Conclusion: GaitSmart® analysis can reflect performance based and self-reported function and may be of value in the evaluation of function in knee OA. Future studies are warranted to validate whether GaitSmart® can be used as clinical outcome measure in OA research and clinical practice., Competing Interests: The IMI-APPROACH project received a grant from Innovative Medicines Institute, grant agreement 115770. Outside the submitted work: DH is founder and technical director of GaitSmart®. MK reports personal fees from consultancy (Abbvie, Pfizer, Levicept, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck-Serono, Kiniksa, Flexion) and local investigator of industry-driven trial (Abbvie), grant from Dutch Society of Rheumatology and Pfizer, royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UptoDate), Springer Verlag (Reumatologie en klinische immunologie). FJB reports grants from Abbvie, Ablynx N.V., Amgen, Archigen Biotech Limited, Boehringer, Bristol-Meyers, Celgene INt., Eli Lilly and Company, F.Hoffman-La Roche Lyd. Galapagos, Gedeon, Gideal Sciences NC, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, INC Research UK Ltd., Inventiv Health Clinical, Janssen, Lilly, Nichi-IKO Pharmaceutical, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Pfizer, Pharmaceutical research, Regeneron, Roche, SA UCB Pharma, Sanofi, TRB CHemedica, USB Biosciences GMBH, and patents for ‘Method for the diagnosing Osteoarthritis’; 15847971.1 (2017), 2,978,169 (2017), 15/540,249 (2017), and for ‘nti-connexin compounds for use in the prevention and/or treatment of degenerative joint disease’; P201731233 (2017). IH reports personal fees from AbbVie, and grants from Pfizer. FB reports personal fees from Boehringer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Merck Sereno, MSD, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Regulaxis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Peptinov, TRB Chemedica, 4P Pharma. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objective: To predict response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) prior to treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to comprehensively understand the mechanism of how different RA patients respond differently to anti-TNF treatment., Methods: Gene expression and/or DNA methylation profiling on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), monocytes, and CD4+ T cells obtained from 80 RA patients before they began either adalimumab (ADA) or etanercept (ETN) therapy was studied. After 6 months, treatment response was evaluated according to the European League Against Rheumatism criteria for disease response. Differential expression and methylation analyses were performed to identify the response-associated transcription and epigenetic signatures. Using these signatures, machine learning models were built by random forest algorithm to predict response prior to anti-TNF treatment, and were further validated by a follow-up study., Results: Transcription signatures in ADA and ETN responders were divergent in PBMCs, and this phenomenon was reproduced in monocytes and CD4+ T cells. The genes up-regulated in CD4+ T cells from ADA responders were enriched in the TNF signaling pathway, while very few pathways were differential in monocytes. Differentially methylated positions (DMPs) were strongly hypermethylated in responders to ETN but not to ADA. The machine learning models for the prediction of response to ADA and ETN using differential genes reached an overall accuracy of 85.9% and 79%, respectively. The models using DMPs reached an overall accuracy of 84.7% and 88% for ADA and ETN, respectively. A follow-up study validated the high performance of these models., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that machine learning models based on molecular signatures accurately predict response before ADA and ETN treatment, paving the path toward personalized anti-TNF treatment., (© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: The aims were to determine the ability of the HandScan [assessing inflammation in hand and wrist joints using optical spectral transmission (OST)] to measure RA disease activity longitudinally, compared with DAS28, and to determine whether short-term (i.e. 1 month) changes in the OST score can predict treatment response at 3 or 6 months., Methods: Participants visited the outpatient clinic before the start of (additional) RA medication and 1, 3 and 6 months thereafter. Disease activity was monitored at each visit with the HandScan and DAS28 in parallel. A mixed effects model with DAS28 as the outcome variable with a random intercept at patient level, visit month and DAS28 one visit earlier was used to evaluate whether changes in the OST score are related to changes in DAS28. Binary logistic regression was used to test the predictive value of short-term changes in the OST score together with the baseline OST score for achievement of treatment response (EULAR or ACR criteria). All models were adjusted for RA stage (early or established)., Results: In total, 64 RA patients were included. One unit change in OST score was found to be related to an average DAS28 change of 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.06, P  = 0.03). When adding OST score as a variable in the longitudinal model, the ability of the model to estimate DAS28 (i.e. explained variance) increased by 2%, to 59%. Neither baseline OST score nor short-term change in OST score was predictive for treatment response at 3 or 6 months., Conclusion: A longitudinal association of OST score with DAS28 exists, although explained variance is low. The predictive ability of short-term changes in HandScan for treatment response is limited., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Purpose: The Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway (APPROACH) consortium intends to prospectively describe in detail, preselected patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), using conventional and novel clinical, imaging, and biochemical markers, to support OA drug development., Participants: APPROACH is a prospective cohort study including 297 patients with tibiofemoral OA, according to the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. Patients were (pre)selected from existing cohorts using machine learning models, developed on data from the CHECK cohort, to display a high likelihood of radiographic joint space width (JSW) loss and/or knee pain progression., Findings to Date: Selection appeared logistically feasible and baseline characteristics of the cohort demonstrated an OA population with more severe disease: age 66.5 (SD 7.1) vs 68.1 (7.7) years, min-JSW 2.5 (1.3) vs 2.1 (1.0) mm and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain 31.3 (19.7) vs 17.7 (14.6), except for age, all: p<0.001, for selected versus excluded patients, respectively. Based on the selection model, this cohort has a predicted higher chance of progression., Future Plans: Patients will visit the hospital again at 6, 12 and 24 months for physical examination, pain and general health questionnaires, collection of blood and urine, MRI scans, radiographs of knees and hands, CT scan of the knee, low radiation whole-body CT, HandScan, motion analysis and performance-based tests.After two years, data will show whether those patients with the highest probabilities for progression experienced disease progression as compared to those wit lower probabilities (model validation) and whether phenotypes/endotypes can be identified and predicted to facilitate targeted drug therapy., Trial Registration Number: NCT03883568., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EMvH has nothing to disclose; WEvS reports grants from The Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under Grant Agreement no 115770, resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and EFPIA companies’ in kind contribution, during the conduct of the study; MPJ has nothing to disclose; PMJW has nothing to disclose. MK reports grants from IMI-APPROACH, grants from Dutch Arthritis Association, during the conduct of the study; other from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck-Serono, Kiniksa, Abbvie, outside the submitted work; ML reports grants from Inovative Medicines Initative, during the conduct of the study; FJB reports grants from Gebro Pharma, grants from BIOIBERICA, grants from AB Science, grants from Abbvie, grants from Ablynx N.V., grants from Amgen, grants from Archigen Biotech, grants from Boehringer, grants from Bristol-Myers, grants from Celgene Int., grants from Eli Lilly and Company, grants from F. Hoffmann- La Roche, grants from Galapagos, grants from Gedeon, grants from Genentech, grants from Gideal Sciences, NC, grants from Glaxosmithkline, grants from Hospira, grants from INC Research UK, grants from Inventiv Health Clinical, grants from Janssen, grants from Lilly, grants from Nichi-IKO Pharmaceutical, grants from Novartis, grants from ONO Pharma, grants from Pfizer, grants from Pharmaceutical Research, grants from Regeneron, grants from Roche, grants from SA UCB Pharma, grants from Sanofi, grants from TRB Chemedica, grants from UCB Biosciences GMBH, outside the submitted work; In addition, FJB has a patent Molecular block-matching method for gel image analysis issued, a patent Targeting A Specific Receptor On Cells With A Specific Compound For Use In The Treatment And/Or The Prevention Of Osteoarthritis And Rheumatoid Arthritis pending, a patent Genetic markers for osteoarthritis issued, a patent Method for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis issued, a patent Genetic markers for osteoarthritis pending, a patent Method for the diagnosing Arthrosis pending, a patent Method for diagnosing Arthrosis pending, a patent Method for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis pending, and a patent Anti-connexin compounds for use in the prevention and/or treatment of degenerative joint diseases. pending; IKH reports personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work; FB reports personal fees from Boehringer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Merck Sereno, MSD, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Regulaxis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Peptinov, TRB Chemedica, 4P Pharma, outside the submitted work; CHL reports other from Merck KGaA, during the conduct of the study; JLo has nothing to disclose; ACB-J reports non-financial support from Nordic Bioscience, personal fees from Nordic Bioscience, during the conduct of the study; AM has nothing to disclose; JLa reports personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work; and Current employee and shareholder of GlaxoSmithKline; JBo reports grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI-1), during the conduct of the study; and one of Lygature's other project receives part of its funding directly from Merck KgaA. This project is in the field of schistosomiasis and has no relationship whatsoever with the APPROACH project; HHW has nothing to disclose; ACAM has nothing to disclose; FPJGL has nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease, predominantly affecting joints, which is initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). In RA patients with insufficient response to csDMARDs, the addition of prednisone or tocilizumab, a biological DMARD (bDMARD), to the medication has been shown to be effective in reducing RA symptoms. However, which of these two treatment strategies has superior effectiveness and safety is unknown., Methods: In this multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, pragmatic trial, we aim to recruit 120 RA patients meeting the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for RA, with active disease defined as a Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) > 10 and at least one swollen joint of the 28 assessed. Patients must be on stable treatment with csDMARDs for ≥ 8 weeks prior to screening and must have been treated with ≥ 2 DMARDs, of which a maximum of one tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (a class of bDMARDs) is allowed. Previous use of other bDMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs is not allowed. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tocilizumab (subcutaneously at 162 mg/week) or prednisone (orally at 10 mg/day) as an addition to their current csDMARD therapy. Study visits will be performed at screening; baseline; and months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Study medication will be tapered in case of clinical remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8 and ≤ 1 swollen joint at two consecutive 3-monthly visits) with careful monitoring of disease activity. In case of persistent high disease activity at or after month 3 (CDAI > 22 at any visit or > 10 at two consecutive visits), patients will switch to the other strategy arm. Primary outcome is a change in CDAI from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes are additional clinical response and quality of life measures, drug retention rate, radiographically detectable progression of joint damage, functional ability, and cost utility. Safety outcomes include tocilizumab-associated adverse events (AEs), glucocorticoid-associated AEs, and serious AEs., Discussion: This will be the first randomized clinical trial comparing addition of oral prednisone or of tocilizumab head to head in RA patients with insufficient response to csDMARD therapy. It will yield important information for clinical rheumatology practice., Trial Registration: This trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on October 7, 2019 (NL8070). The Netherlands Trial Register contains all items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set.

Objective: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) and knee joint distraction (KJD) are treatments to unload the osteoarthritic (OA) joint with proven success in postponing a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While both treatments demonstrate joint repair, there is limited information about the quality of the regenerated tissue. Therefore, the change in quality of the repaired cartilaginous tissue after KJD and HTO was studied using delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC)., Design: Forty patients (20 KJD and 20 HTO), treated for medial tibiofemoral OA, were included in this study. Radiographic outcomes, clinical characteristics, and cartilage quality were evaluated at baseline, and at 1- and 2-year follow-up., Results: Two years after KJD treatment, clear clinical improvement was observed. Moreover, a statistically significant increased medial (Δ 0.99 mm), minimal (Δ 1.04 mm), and mean (Δ 0.68 mm) radiographic joint space width (JSW) was demonstrated. Likewise, medial (Δ 1.03 mm), minimal (Δ 0.72 mm), and mean (Δ 0.46 mm) JSW were statistically significantly increased on radiographs after HTO. There was on average no statistically significant change in dGEMRIC indices over two years and no difference between treatments. Yet there seemed to be a clinically relevant, positive relation between increase in cartilage quality and patients' experienced clinical benefit., Conclusions: Treatment of knee OA by either HTO or KJD leads to clinical benefit, and an increase in cartilage thickness on weightbearing radiographs for over 2 years posttreatment. This cartilaginous tissue was on average not different from baseline, as determined by dGEMRIC, whereas changes in quality at the individual level correlated with clinical benefit.

Background: Assessment of disease activity is a critical component of tight-control, treat-to-target treatment strategies of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recently, the HandScan has been validated as a novel method for objectively assessing RA disease activity in only 1.5 min, using optical spectral transmission (OST) in hands and wrists. We describe the protocol of a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) to investigate whether HandScan-guided treatment aimed at 'HandScan remission' (HandScan arm) is at least as effective as and more cost-effective than clinically guided treatment aimed at ACR/EULAR 2011 Boolean remission (DAS arm)., Methods/design: The study is a multi-center, double-blind, non-inferiority RCT of 18 months duration. Patients ≥ 18 years with newly diagnosed, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve RA according to the ACR 2010 classification criteria, will be randomized to the DAS arm or the HandScan arm. The efficacy of the arms will be compared by evaluating Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores (primary outcome) after 18 months of DMARD therapy, aimed at remission. The equivalence margin in HAQ scores between study arms is 0.2. Secondary outcomes are differences in cost-effectiveness and radiographic joint damage between treatment arms. The non-inferiority sample size calculation to obtain a power of 80% at a one-sided p value of 0.05, with 10% dropouts, resulted in 61 patients per arm. In both arms, DMARD strategy will be intensified monthly according to predefined steps until remission is achieved; in both arms DMARDs and treatment steps are identical. If sustained remission, defined as remission that persists consistently over three consecutive months, is achieved, DMARD therapy will be tapered., Discussion: The study protocol and the specifically designed decision-making software application allow for implementation of this RCT. To test a novel method of assessing disease activity and comparing (cost-)effectiveness with the contemporary method in treat-to-target DMARD strategies in early RA patients., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR6388. Registered on 6 April 2017 ( NL50026.041.14 ). Protocol version 3.0, 19-01-2017.

Objective: To determine whether optical spectral transmission (OST) can be used to assess synovitis in hand and wrist joints of patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA)., Design: Hand and wrist joints of 47 primary hand OA patients with at least one clinically inflamed hand or wrist joint were assessed for synovitis by OST and ultrasound (US). Associations between standardized OST and US synovitis were studied in linear mixed effects models, across all joint types together and individually for wrist, proximal interphalangeal (PIP), and distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints, and were adjusted for OA features that showed associations with US synovitis. Diagnostic performance was determined using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves analysis, with US as reference standard., Results: Altogether, 6.7% of joints showed US synovitis. Statistically significant associations between OST scores and US synovitis were found for all joints combined (Δ0.37SD, p<0.001) and PIP joints (Δ0.81SD, p<0.001), but not for DIP (Δ0.14SD, p = 0.484) or wrist joints (Δ0.37SD, p = 0.178). All associations were independent of other OA features, i.e. osteophytes and dorsal vascularity. Analysis of diagnostic performance of OST, revealed an area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.74 for all joints together (p<0.001), 0.69 for PIP joints (p<0.001), 0.54 for DIP joints (p = 0.486), and 0.61 for wrist joints (p = 0.234)., Conclusions: OST scores and US synovitis are statistically significantly associated, independent of osteophytes and dorsal vascularity. At this stage, OST performs fair in the assessment of synovitis in PIP joints of hand OA patients., Competing Interests: Data sharing restrictions apply to the HandScan software. This software is is proprietary third party software and therefore cannot be made available as open source software. An unrestricted research grant was provided by Hemics to finance the salaries of NB and PvdM. The authors have no patent applications, ownership and possess no stocks or shares of the company Hemics, nor receive any gift, consulting fee, royalty, travel grant, or honorarium for speaking or participation at meetings, or the like. The authors have no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Objective: To develop an optical spectral transmission (OST) model to measure joint inflammation, and thus disease activity, as well as to evaluate (patho-)physiological findings that could lead to misclassification of inflammation., Methods: Forty-six RA patients were included in this cross-sectional study, where US scores, duplicate OST measurements and 28-joint DAS (DAS28) were acquired. With US as a reference standard, the diagnostic performance of OST in detecting inflammation at the joint level was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. At the patient level, correlations with US were analysed for DAS28 and OST, and at joint level for OST and tender and swollen joint counts (TJC and SJC, respectively). Joint pathology potentially influencing misclassification by OST [erosions, osteophytes, tendon (sheath) inflammation (ab)normal vasculature and chondrocalcinosis] was evaluated for significance in a multivariate nominal logistic regression model., Results: Diagnostic performance of OST was good for MCP [area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) 0.88], PIP (AUC-ROC 0.83) and wrist (AUC-ROC 0.74) joints and for all joints together (AUC-ROC 0.85). At the patient level, DAS28 correlated very poorly (ρ = 0.06) and OST moderately (ρ = 0.54) with US. At the joint level, US correlation with OST was strong (ρ = 0.64), with SJC it was weak (ρ = 0.30) and with TJC it was very weak (ρ = -0.02). Misclassification of inflammation by OST was relatively rare (17%). Dorsal erosions [odds ratio (OR) 4.0], osteophytes (OR 2.1) and extensor tendinitis (OR 4.6) increased the risk of underestimating inflammation of MCP and PIP joints and osteophytes (OR 3.0) also increased the risk of overestimating inflammation., Conclusion: OST is a sensitive, specific and objective technique to assess joints inflammation of the hands and wrists of RA patients, even though bone and tendon pathology increases the risk of misclassification.

Background: For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, treatment aim is early, rapid, and sustained remission. We compared the efficacy and safety of strategies initiating the interleukin-6 receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody tocilizumab with or without methotrexate (a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD]), versus initiation of methotrexate monotherapy in line with international guidelines., Methods: We did a 2-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy study at 21 rheumatology outpatient departments in the Netherlands. We included patients who had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis within 1 year before inclusion, were DMARD-naive, aged 18 years or older, met current rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria, and had a disease activity score assessing 28 joints (DAS28) of at least 2·6. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to start tocilizumab plus methotrexate (the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm), or tocilizumab plus placebo-methotrexate (the tocilizumab arm), or methotrexate plus placebo-tocilizumab (the methotrexate arm). Tocilizumab was given at 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks with a maximum of 800 mg per dose. Methotrexate was started at 10 mg per week orally and increased stepwise every 4 weeks by 5 mg to a maximum of 30 mg per week, until remission or dose-limiting toxicity. We did the randomisation using an interactive web response system. Masking was achieved with placebos that were similar in appearance to the active drug; the study physicians, pharmacists, monitors, and patients remained masked during the study, and all assessments were done by masked assessors. Patients not achieving remission on their initial regimen switched from placebo to active treatments; patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm switched to standard of care therapy (typically methotrexate combined with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor). When sustained remission was achieved, methotrexate (and placebo-methotrexate) was tapered and stopped, then tocilizumab (and placebo-tocilizumab) was also tapered and stopped. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving sustained remission (defined as DAS28 <2·6 with a swollen joint count ≤four, persisting for at least 24 weeks) on the initial regimen and during the entire study duration, compared between groups with a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat method. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01034137., Findings: Between Jan 13, 2010, and July 30, 2012, we recruited and assigned 317 eligible patients to treatment (106 to the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 103 to the tocilizumab arm, and 108 to the methotrexate arm). The study was completed by a similar proportion of patients in the three groups (range 72-78%). The most frequent reasons for dropout were adverse events or intercurrent illness: 27 (34%) of dropouts, and insufficient response: 26 (33%) of dropouts. 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission on the initial regimen, compared with 86 (84%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 48 (44%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm (relative risk [RR] 2·00, 95% CI 1·59-2·51 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, and 1·86, 1·48-2·32 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, p<0·0001 for both comparisons). For the entire study, 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 91 (88%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 83 (77%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission (RR 1·13, 95% CI 1·00-1·29, p=0·06 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, 1·14, 1·01-1·29, p=0·0356 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, and p=0·59 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs tocilizumab). Nasopharyngitis was the most common adverse event in all three treatment groups, occurring in 38 (36%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 40 (39%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 37 (34%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm. The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups (17 [16%] of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm vs 19 [18%] of 103 in the tocilizumab arm and 13 [12%] of 108 in the methotrexate arm), and no deaths occurred during the study., Interpretation: For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, strategies aimed at sustained remission by immediate initiation of tocilizumab with or without methotrexate are more effective, and with a similar safety profile, compared with initiation of methotrexate in line with current standards., Funding: Roche Nederland BV., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)