Desert Medical Imaging

ObjectivesDARWIN 3 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02065700) assessed the safety and efficacy of filgotinib in a long-term extension (LTE) of two phase II randomised controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials.MethodsEligible patients completing the 24-week DARWIN 1 (filgotinib plus methotrexate) and DARWIN 2 (filgotinib monotherapy) trials could enrol. Patients received filgotinib 200 mg/day, except 15 men who received filgotinib 100 mg/day. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, which were assessed by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Safety and efficacy analyses included all enrolled patients who received ≥1 dose of filgotinib in DARWIN 3.Results739 patients entered the LTE. The total patient-years of exposure (PYE) to filgotinib was 3706.3 years; the mean exposure duration was 259.8 weeks. 497 patients (67.3%) discontinued prematurely (including 266 TEAEs and 172 withdrawals due to the patient’s decision or ‘sponsor request’). Overall exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) was 67 (95% CI 62 to 72.2)/100 PYE for TEAEs and 3.8 (95% CI 3.2 to 4.5)/100 PYE for serious TEAEs. EAIR of infections was 23.3 (95% CI 21.2 to 25.6)/100 PYE, 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.7)/100 PYE for serious infections and 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.7)/100 PYE for herpes zoster. EAIRs of major adverse cardiovascular events (0.19 (95% CI 0.8 to 0.39)/100 PYE) and malignancies (0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.9)/100 PYE) were low. Disease response assessed using non-responder imputation plateaued at LTE week 12 before slowly declining over time, with overall American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 response rates of 26.9%/20.2%/14.7% at week 396.ConclusionFilgotinib was well tolerated in patients with RA for up to 8 years. Safety and efficacy profiles were maintained in patients previously receiving either filgotinib plus methotrexate or filgotinib monotherapy.

Pet dogs are a valuable natural animal model for studying relationships between primary immunodeficiencies and susceptibility to Pneumocystis and other opportunistic respiratory pathogens. Certain breeds, such as the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, are over-represented for Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP), suggesting the presence of a primary immunodeficiency in the breed. Here, we report the discovery of a CARMIL2 nonsense variant in three Cavalier King Charles Spaniel dogs with either PCP (n = 2) or refractory Bordetella pneumonia (n = 1). CARMIL2 encodes a protein that plays critical roles in T-cell activation and other aspects of immune function. Deleterious CARMIL2 variants have recently been reported in human patients with PCP and other recurrent pneumonias. In addition to opportunistic respiratory infection, the affected dogs also exhibited other clinical manifestations of CARMIL2 deficiencies that have been reported in humans, including early-onset gastrointestinal disease, allergic skin disease, mucocutaneous lesions, abscesses, autoimmune disorders, and gastrointestinal parasitism. This discovery highlights the potential utility of a natural canine model in identifying and studying primary immunodeficiencies in patients affected by PCP.

Abstract Historical data sets can be useful tools to aid in understanding the impacts of global change on natural ecosystems. Resampling of historically sampled sites (“snapshot resampling”) has often been used to detect long‐term shifts in ecological populations and communities, because it allows researchers to avoid long‐term monitoring costs and investigate a large number of potential trends. But recent simulation‐based research has called the reliability of resampling into question, and its utility has not been comprehensively evaluated. Here we combine long‐term empirical data sets with novel community‐level simulations to explore the accuracy of snapshot resampling of both population‐ and community‐level metrics under a variety of conditions. We show that snapshot resampling often yields spurious conclusions, but the accuracy of results increases when inter‐annual variability in the response variable is low or the magnitude of change through time is high. Snapshot resampling also generally performs better for community‐level metrics (e.g., species richness) as opposed to population‐level metrics pertaining to a single species (e.g., abundance). Finally, we evaluate strategies to improve the accuracy of snapshot resampling, including sampling multiple years at the end of the study, but these produce mixed results. Ultimately, we find that snapshot resampling should be used with caution, but under certain circumstances, can be a useful for understanding long‐term global change impacts.

Objectives: To correlate audiometry with atherosclerosis. Presbycusis is associated with age and atherosclerosis; a strong correlation might present opportunities to use audiometry to track atherosclerosis disease. Design: The authors tested 87 elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis (age range: 80–101 years; median: 86 years) with a history of methotrexate use for over 20 years. After 50 years of age, hearing loss begins slowly and by the age of 90, the majority of the general population require hearing aids. In the 87 elderly participants, however, hearing was remarkably preserved. Results: The observed cohort of 87 individuals showed better hearing than predicted compared to audiometry historically documented in the elderly (p<0.001). The patients tested one to two decades younger than expected on audiometry and 44% of patients qualified for hearing aids instead of the expected 80%, based on age. Conclusion: The known reduction in atherosclerosis with methotrexate use in rheumatoid arthritis may account for this observed preservation of hearing.1,2 As hearing and atherosclerosis are related, the authors further postulated that routine audiometry may provide a cost-effective screening tool for other populations in future atherosclerosis studies.

To evaluate subcutaneous SBI-087 to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A total of 210 adult patients with active RA were randomized to receive either 200 mg SBI-087 or placebo (Pbo), according to one of these patterns: SBI/Pbo/Pbo (SBI on Day 1), SBI/SBI/Pbo (SBI days 1 and 15), SBI/Pbo/SBI (SBI days 1 and 84), SBI/SBI/SBI (SBI days 1, 15, and 84), or Pbo/Pbo/Pbo (Pbo all 3 days). All patients were seropositive and taking background methotrexate. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement from baseline at Week 16 by American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). Other outcomes included 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)-C-reactive protein (CRP), physician's and patient's global assessments of disease activity (PGA and PtGA, respectively) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Peripheral CD19+ B cells were measured by high-sensitivity flow cytometer. Statistical significance was set at 2-sided α 0.10 level. The SBI/SBI/SBI group demonstrated significant improvement in ACR20 and DAS28-CRP from Week 8 onward, sustained improvement in CRP levels from Week 12 onward, and significant improvements in PGA and PtGA in weeks 16 through 24, and in HAQ-DI at Week 24. The SBI/Pbo/Pbo and SBI/SBI/Pbo groups did not meet the primary endpoint but demonstrated improvements in several secondary endpoints. All treatment groups exhibited depletion of peripheral CD19+ B cells throughout the study. Overall, 61.5% of patients receiving SBI-087 and 55.0% of patients receiving Pbo reported adverse events. SBI-087 effectively depleted peripheral CD20 B cells and was well tolerated. Improvements were consistently observed in the SBI/SBI/SBI group for the majority of efficacy and quality-of-life outcomes.

BackgroundBaricitinib is an oral, reversible, selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor.MethodsIn this phase III, double-blind 24-week study, 684 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARDs were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to placebo or baricitinib (2 or 4 mg) once daily, stratified by region and the presence of joint erosions. Endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20, primary endpoint), Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3.ResultsMore patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib 4 mg than with placebo (62% vs 39%, p≤0.001). Compared with placebo, statistically significant improvements in DAS28, SDAI remission, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, morning joint stiffness, worst joint pain and worst tiredness were observed. In a supportive analysis, radiographic progression of structural joint damage at week 24 was reduced with baricitinib versus placebo. Rates of adverse events during the treatment period and serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, were similar among groups (SAEs: 5% for baricitinib 4 mg and placebo). One patient had an adverse event of tuberculosis (baricitinib 4 mg); one patient had an adverse event of non-melanoma skin cancer (baricitinib 4 mg). Two deaths and three major adverse cardiovascular events occurred (placebo). Baricitinib was associated with a decrease in neutrophils and increases in low-density and high-density lipoprotein.ConclusionsIn patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs, baricitinib was associated with clinical improvement and inhibition of progression of radiographic joint damage.Trial registration numberNCT01721057; Results.

ObjectiveTo explore development of a screening test for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients most likely to develop radiographic damage in the next year. The test is a simple, objective measurement of elevated dermal temperature over an inflamed joint in this observational, prospective cohort study.MethodsSeropositive RA patients were sequentially enrolled into cohorts with hot or cool joints, as determined by a dermal thermometer. Patients naive to biologic therapy were maintained on a stable dosage of methotrexate (20–25 mg/week). The hot‐joint cohort had a joint skin temperature greater than their body temperature on vital signs. Hand/wrist radiographs obtained at baseline and 1 year later were read and scored using modified Sharp/van der Heijde scores (SHS) by a single reader without sequence order or identifiers.ResultsEach cohort consisted of 104 patients enrolled into observation between 2009 and 2014. Patients in the cohort with hot joints had a mean ± SD joint temperature of 1.06 ± 0.69°F above central body temperature and a nearly 4‐fold higher risk of new radiographic damage than those with cool joints (SHS score 8.7 ± 6.2 versus 2.5 ± 1.4; P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity for joint temperature to predict radiographic damage in the next year were 92% and 78%, respectively, in the hot‐joint cohort. As expected, this cohort at baseline was younger, had more recent onset RA, and had higher Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels than the cool‐joint cohort (P < 0.001 for each).ConclusionDermal joint temperature may become a screening test to quickly and accurately identify individual RA patients at high risk for radiographic damage and those who may benefit most from biologic therapy.

To assess the safety of rituximab in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Adult patients with active RA (≥ 5 swollen and ≥ 5 tender joints) receiving a stable dose of MTX (10-25 mg/week) and stable dose of TNF inhibitor (etanercept or adalimumab) for ≥ 12 weeks were randomized 2:1 to receive one course of rituximab or placebo, given intravenously at a dose of 2 × 500 mg. The primary end point was the proportion of patients developing ≥ 1 serious infection through week 24. Fifty-one patients were treated with either rituximab or placebo in combination with background MTX and a TNF inhibitor. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups, except for corticosteroid usage (36% in the rituximab arm versus 17% in the placebo arm). A serious infection (pneumonia) was observed in 1 patient (3%) in the rituximab group after 14.4 patient-years of exposure (6.95 events per 100 patient-years, 95% confidence interval 0.98-49.35), compared with none in the placebo group at week 24. Infections were reported in 18 patients (55%) and 11 patients (61%) in the rituximab and placebo groups, respectively. Grade 3 infections were reported in 3 patients (9%) receiving rituximab and in none of the patients receiving placebo. No grade 4 infections were observed, nor were there any opportunistic, fungal, or tuberculosis infections. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 2 rituximab-treated patients (pneumonia and coronary artery occlusion), whereas there were no SAEs reported in placebo-treated patients. At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response was 30% in the rituximab group compared with 17% in the placebo group, and ACR50 responses were achieved by 12% and 6% of patients, respectively. The preliminary safety profile of rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX was consistent with the safety profile of rituximab in combination with MTX in other RA trials without a TNF inhibitor, with no new safety signals observed. SAEs were numerically more frequent in the rituximab group, and there was no clear evidence of an efficacy advantage in patients receiving rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX.