Dataset Information

Association of Dysregulated Central Pain Processing and Response to Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the association between dysregulated central pain processing and treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

One hundred eighty-two participants with active RA were followed up for 12 weeks after starting a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). To assess central pain processing, participants underwent quantitative sensory testing (QST), including assessment of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at the trapezius muscles, temporal summation, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). QST measures were categorized as high central dysregulation versus low central dysregulation. The association between baseline central dysregulation and treatment response, as defined by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, was assessed using multiple logistic regression adjusted for demographic characteristics, RA-related variables, and psychosocial variables.

Results

A good EULAR response was achieved in fewer participants with high CPM dysregulation than participants with low CPM dysregulation (22.5% versus 40.3%; P = 0.01). A similar trend, though not significant, was noted when central dysregulation was assessed with PPT and temporal summation. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the association between high central dysregulation and good EULAR response were 0.59 for PPTs (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.28-1.23), 0.60 for temporal summation (95% CI 0.27-1.34), and 0.40 for CPM (95% CI 0.19-0.83). In a model examining the combined effects of dysregulated temporal summation and CPM, dysregulation of both measures was associated with lower odds of achieving a good EULAR response (OR 0.23 [95% CI 0.07-0.73]).

Conclusion

Low CPM was significantly associated with lower odds of achieving a good EULAR response, suggesting that inefficient descending inhibitory mechanisms may be a potential treatment target for further study.

SUBMITTER: Heisler AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8078061 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) have cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is modifiable with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, comparing first-line etanercept (ETN) + methotrexate (MTX) with MTX strategy.MethodsPatients from a phase IV ERA trial randomised to ETN+MTX or MTX strategy±month 6 escalation to ETN+MTX, and with no CVD and maximum one traditional risk factor underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) at baseline, years 1 and 2. Thirty matched controls underwent CMR. Primary outcome measure was aortic distensibility (AD) between controls and ERA, and baseline to year 1 AD change in ERA. Secondary analyses between and within ERA groups performed. Additional outcome measures included left ventricular (LV) mass and myocardial extracellular volume (ECV).ResultsEighty-one patients recruited. In ERA versus controls, respectively, baseline (geometric mean, 95% CI) AD was significantly lower (3.0×10-3 mm Hg-1 (2.7-3.3) vs 4.4×10-3 mm Hg-1 (3.7-5.2), p<0.001); LV mass significantly lower (78.2 g (74.0-82.7), n=81 vs 92.9 g (84.8-101.7), n=30, p<0.01); and ECV increased (27.1% (26.4-27.9), n=78 vs 24.9% (23.8-26.1), n=30, p<0.01). Across all patients, AD improved significantly from baseline to year 1 (3.0×10-3 mm Hg-1 (2.7-3.4) to 3.6×10-3 mm Hg-1 (3.1-4.1), respectively, p<0.01), maintained at year 2. The improvement in AD did not differ between the two treatment arms and disease activity state (Disease Activity Score with 28 joint count)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate-defined responders versus non-responders.ConclusionWe report the first evidence of vascular and myocardial abnormalities in an ERA randomised controlled trial cohort and show improvement with DMARD therapy. The type of DMARD (first-line tumour necrosis factor-inhibitors or MTX) and clinical response to therapy did not affect CVD markers.Trial registration numberISRCTN: ISRCTN89222125; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01295151.

Project description:IntroductionSome patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experience inefficacy or lack of tolerability and hence switch to another TNFi (cycling) or to a therapy with another mode of action (switching). This study examined patient characteristics, prescribing patterns and treatment practice for RA in the United States.MethodsData were from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme (Q2-Q3 2016). Rheumatologists completed a survey and patient record forms for adult patients with RA who had received ≥ 1 targeted therapy. Patients were grouped by class of first-used targeted therapy, and monotherapy vs. combination therapy. TNFi patients who received ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as cyclers or switchers. Univariate analyses compared patient characteristics and physician factors across the analysis groups.ResultsOverall, 631 patients received ≥ 1 targeted therapy; 535 were prescribed a TNFi as first targeted therapy, 53 a nonTNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and 43 tofacitinib. Of 577 patients with known conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD status, 18.7% were prescribed monotherapy and 81.3% combination therapy. Combination therapy patients received significantly more concomitant medications prior to initiation of first targeted therapy than monotherapy patients (P < 0.05). The top reason for physicians to prescribe first use targeted therapy was strong overall efficacy (79.9%). Of 163 patients who progressed to second targeted therapy, 60.7% were cyclers. A lower proportion of cyclers persisted on their first use targeted therapy versus switchers (P = 0.03). The main reason physicians gave for switching patients at this stage was worsening condition (46.6%).ConclusionsMost patients were prescribed a TNFi as their first targeted therapy; over half then cycled to another TNFi. This suggests other factors may influence second use targeted treatment choice and highlights the need for greater understanding of outcomes associated with subsequent treatment choices and potential benefits of switching.

Project description:IntroductionTo compare biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy persistence between biologics among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who previously used ?1 other biologic.MethodsUsing a large United States administrative claims dataset, we identified adult patients with RA initiating abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, or tocilizumab between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2012 (initiation date = index). Patients were required to have used ?1 other biologic before index. Outcomes were biologic persistence, defined in two alternative ways: (1) time from initiation until switching to a different biologic (time to switch) and (2) time from initiation until switching or the first occurrence of a 90-day gap in treatment with the initiated biologic (time to switch/discontinuation). Rituximab was excluded from analyses due to retreatment based on clinical evaluation, which complicates the measurement of persistence. Multivariable survival analyses compared persistence outcomes between tocilizumab and the other biologics, adjusting for patient characteristics.ResultsThe sample comprised 9,782 biologic initiations; mean age 54 years and 82% female. Compared with tocilizumab, the hazards of switching biologic therapy were significantly higher for abatacept [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.19, P = 0.041], adalimumab (HR = 1.39, P < 0.001), certolizumab (HR = 1.39, P < 0.001), golimumab (HR = 1.20, P = 0.047), and infliximab (HR = 1.33, P < 0.001), but not significantly different for etanercept (HR = 1.19, P = 0.095); the hazards of switching/discontinuing biologic therapy were significantly higher for adalimumab (HR = 1.16, P = 0.014) and certolizumab (HR = 1.15, P < 0.012), but not significantly different for abatacept (HR = 1.08, P = 0.229), etanercept (HR = 0.97, P = 0.644), golimumab (HR = 0.99, P = 0.829), and infliximab (HR = 0.97, P = 0.721).ConclusionsThis is one of the first studies of biologic persistence to focus specifically on patients with RA who are not naïve to biologic treatment. Among patients with RA who previously used ?1 other biologic, tocilizumab-treated patients had similar or significantly better biologic persistence compared with other biologics.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe effects of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and cancer are largely unknown. We examined overall survival (OS) in patients with RA and solid malignancies receiving bDMARDs.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with RA and solid malignancies seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2002 and 2014. Cox proportional hazard regression models, stratified by tumor type and stage, were fit evaluating use of bDMARDs as a time fixed and time varying covariate.ResultsWe identified 431 RA patients with solid malignancies: 111 (26%) received bDMARDs after their cancer diagnosis. Median OS from cancer diagnosis was 16.1 years. Of the patients receiving bDMARDs, most had localized disease, and only 14 (13%) had advanced cancer. In the stratified Cox models no statistically significant differences were observed between patients who received tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or patients who received nonTNFi, compared with those who did not receive bDMARDs (hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31, 1.44; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.26, 4.60 respectively). In breast cancer patients, those receiving TNFi or nonTNFi had a numerically higher but statistically nonsignificant HR compared with those who did not receive bDMARD: HR, 1.40 (95% CI, 0.42, 4.73), and HR, 1.37 (95% CI, 0.22, 8.42) respectively.ConclusionNo significant differences in OS were observed between patients who received bDMARDs and those who did not. Additional data is needed to evaluate other cancer outcomes such as recurrence and progression, and patients with advanced cancer. Key Points •We found no statistically significant differences in OS between patients with RA and concomitant solid malignancies who received bDMARDs and those who did not. •Most patients who received bDMARDs had been diagnosed with early stage cancer •As few patients with advanced cancer received bDMARDs safety for this group cannot be established •No significant differences were observed between TNFi and nonTNFi, but the sample size was small.