Artritis Inflamtoria en La Practica 2015

Ian C.
Scott
James B. Galloway
David L. Scott
Inflammatory Arthritis
in Clinical Practice
Second Edition
123
Ian C. Scott James B. Galloway
David L. Scott
Second Edition
Ian C. Scott David L. Scott
Molecular and Cellular Biology Rheumatology
of Inflammation Kings College Hospital
Kings College London London
London UK
UK
James B. Galloway
Rheumatology
Kings College Hospital
London
UK
ISBN 978-1-4471-6647-4 ISBN 978-1-4471-6648-1 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1
Springer London Heidelberg New York Dordrecht
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015932095

Springer-Verlag London 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduc-
tion on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this
legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analy-
sis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and exe-
cuted on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the
provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publishers location, in its current version,
and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for
use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center.
Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service
marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific
statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and
regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and
accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the
publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may
be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface
The inflammatory arthropathies are a group of conditions

characterised by pain and swelling of the joints. The common-
est types comprise rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthri-
tis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and reactive arthritis.
In most instances they represent long-term conditions, which
require treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Unless
adequately managed they can have major impacts on patients
resulting in pain, disability and an impaired quality of life.
Over the last three decades the assessment and diagnosis
of inflammatory arthritis has rapidly and radically changed.
This has accelerated in the last few years with a series of
major developments. These span new diagnostic tests such as
antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA) in RA,
novel imaging approaches such as the high-resolution ultra-
sound power Doppler modality, and new treatments, particu-
larly biologics.
There has also been a major shift in the manner in which
inflammatory arthritis is viewed and treated. The historical
Spa hospital ethos of bed rest and hydrotherapy has been
completely cast aside in favour of early intensive treatment
with combination disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs
(DMARDs) and biologics. The end result has been improved
patient outcomes.
There are still many challenges to overcome in the man-
agement of inflammatory arthritis patients. Firstly, as early
treatment results in better outcomes, an improved ability
to diagnose and treat these diseases at an early stage is
needed. Secondly, as patients have a variable disease course,
biomarkers are required that predict an individuals likely
v
vi Preface
disease severity; such markers could guide decisions on treat-

ment intensity. Thirdly, different patients respond to different
drugs; methods are therefore needed that can predict what
medications someone is likely to benefit from, providing tai-
lored treatment. Finally, as current tools to measure disease
activity and severity in routine clinics have limitations, such
as the floor-effect of joint counts, improved methods to
measure the impact of inflammatory arthritis are required.
Understanding the key components of the diagnosis,
assessment and management of inflammatory arthritis
patients is essential to improving patient care. This book
aims to cover these areas. It places inflammatory arthritis
into a historical context; deals with the epidemiology, pathol-
ogy, clinical assessment and investigation of inflammatory
arthritis patients; and provides a comprehensive overview
of currently available treatment options. It provides insight
into stratified medicine, an area of emerging importance in
the management of heterogeneous diseases like RA. Finally,
it provides an overview of what treatment strategies are in
development.
London, UK Ian C. Scott

London, UK James B. Galloway
London, UK David L. Scott
Contents
1 An Overview of Inflammatory Arthritis. . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
What Are the Inflammatory Arthropathies? . . . . . . . 2
Historical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Diagnosis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Concept of Classification Criteria . . . . . . . . . 4
Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Ankylosing Spondylitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Psoriatic Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Other Spondyloarthropathies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Epidemiology and Pathology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Epidemiology of Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Epidemiology of Seronegative Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Aetiology of Inflammatory Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Seronegative Spondyloarthropathies . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Pathology of Inflammatory Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Histology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Lymphocytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Cytokines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chemokines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Metalloproteinases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Adhesion Molecules, Angiogenesis
and Other Mediators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
vii
viii Contents
3 Clinical Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Synovitis of Peripheral Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Symptoms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Joint Swelling and Tenderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Peripheral Joints Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Other Forms of Spondyloarthropathies. . . . . . . . . 29
Enthesitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Spinal Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Other Types of Spondyloarthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Systemic Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Clinical Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Onset of Rheumatoid Arthritis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Established Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Other Inflammatory Arthropathies . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Undifferentiated Early Arthritis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Extra-articular Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Other Inflammatory Arthropathies . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 Clinical and Laboratory Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Role of Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Clinical Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Joint Counts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Global Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Pain Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Functional Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Generic Health Status Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
SF-36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
EuroQol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Laboratory Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Acute Phase Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Multi-biomarker Disease Activity
(MBDA) Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Contents ix
Rheumatoid Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Antibodies to Citrullinated Protein Antigens. . . . 52
Imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
X-Rays in Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Ultrasound in Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Rheumatoid
Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Imaging in Psoriatic Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Imaging in Ankylosing Spondylitis
and Reactive Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Combined Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Core Data Set in Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . 57
Composite Disease Activity Indices: Disease
Activity Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Simplified Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
American College of Rheumatology (ACR)
Response Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Other Forms of Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5 Symptomatic Drug Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Simple Analgesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Paracetamol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Opioids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Tramadol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Buprenorphine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Codeine and Dihydrocodeine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Compound Analgesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs
(NSAIDs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Mechanism of Action and Cox I/Cox II Effects . . 73
Classification of NSAIDs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
x Contents
Conventional NSAIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Cox-2 Drugs (COXIBs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Adverse Reactions to NSAIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Gastrointestinal Adverse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Cardiovascular Adverse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Use in Specific Forms of Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Psoriatic Arthritis and Seronegative
Spondyloarthritis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6 Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs . . . . . . . . 87

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Currently Used Conventional DMARDs. . . . . . . . . . 88
Starting DMARDs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Monitoring DMARDs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Stopping DMARDs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Early and Late Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Intensive Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Treat to Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Seronegative Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Changes in Clinical Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Reduction in Joint Counts and Acute
Phase Proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
American College of Rheumatology
Responses (ACR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Improved Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Radiological Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Methotrexate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Clinical Use and Efficacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Adverse Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Leflunomide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Clinical Use and Efficacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Adverse Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Sulfasalazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Contents xi
Other DMARDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Injectable Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Hydroxychloroquine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Ciclosporin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Azathioprine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Minor DMARDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Combining DMARDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Effective Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Ineffective Combinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Intensive Treatments in Early Disease. . . . . . . . . . 107
Overall Effectiveness of Combinations . . . . . . . . . 108
Seronegative Spondyloarthritis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7 Biologics An Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Biologic Treatment Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Health Economic Case for Using Biologics . . . . . . . . 117
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8 Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-Alpha

(TNF-) Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Etanercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Infliximab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Adalimumab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Certolizumab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Golimumab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Indications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
xii Contents
Clinical Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Safety and Adverse Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Biologics Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Local Injection Site Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Hypersensitivity Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Infections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Demyelinating-like Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Haematological Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Heart Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Malignancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Auto-immune Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Interstitial Lung Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Psoriasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Immune Responses to TNF- Inhibitors. . . . . . . . . . . 132
Switching Anti-TNF Agents in Cases of
Primary or Secondary Failure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
9 B-Cell Inhibition and Other Biologics . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Rituximab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
B Cells in RA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Mechanism of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Clinical Indications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Clinical Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Initial and Repeat Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Adverse Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Anti-biologic Antibodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Tocilizumab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Clinical Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Dosing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Clinical Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Adverse Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Anti-biologic Antibodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Contents xiii
Abatacept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Clinical Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Dosing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Clinical Efficacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Adverse Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Ustekinumab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Clinical Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Adverse Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Anakinra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Clinical Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Side-Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
10 Steroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Pharmacological Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Effects on Joint Inflammation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Erosive Progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Treating Flares with Systemic Steroids . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Psoriatic Arthritis and Ankylosing Spondylitis . . . . 159
Side-Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Local Steroids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
11 Non-drug Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Multidisciplinary Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Education and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Promoting Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Promoting Mobility, Function and Participation . . . 165
Physiotherapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Occupational Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Podiatry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Orthopaedic Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
xiv Contents
12 Stopping Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Conventional Disease Modifying
Drugs (DMARDs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Can Patients Stay on DMARDs?. . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Withdrawing DMARDs in Responders . . . . . . . 174
Step-Down DMARD Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Observational Studies of DMARD
Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Predicting Flares After DMARD Withdrawal . . 176
Recommendations in Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Biological Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Stopping and Tapering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Studies in Rheumatoid Arthritis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Studies in Psoriatic Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Studies in Ankylosing Spondylitis . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Steroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
13 Emerging Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . 183

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Biosimilars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Interchangeability of Biosimilars with
Existing Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Drugs in Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
JAK Inhibitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Other Kinase Inhibitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
PDE4 Inhibitors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Future Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
14 Stratified Medicine in Inflammatory Arthritis . . . . . 191

What Is Stratified Medicine? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Why Stratified Medicine Is Needed in
Inflammatory Arthritis Patients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Existing Research in Stratified Medicine
in Inflammatory Arthritis Patients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Contents xv
Predictors of Disease Course in RA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Serology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Alcohol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Social Deprivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Predicting RA Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Predictors of Treatment Responses in RA . . . . . . . . 196
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Serology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Disease Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Prediction Models for Treatment Responses
in RA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Stratified Medicine in Non-RA Inflammatory
Arthropathies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Psoriatic Arthritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Ankylosing Spondylitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Current Use of Stratified Medicine
in Inflammatory Arthritis Patients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Abbreviations
ACPA Antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens

ACR American College of Rheumatology
ANA Anti-nuclear antibody
AS Ankylosing spondylitis
ASAS Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International
Society
BASDAI Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity
Index
BASFI Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional
Index
BTK Brutons tyrosine kinase
CARDERA Combination Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early
RA
CASPAR Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis
CDAI Clinical Disease Activity Index
COX Cyclo-oxygenase
CRP C-reactive protein
CT Computerised tomography
DAS Disease activity score
DEXA Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
DIP Distal interphalangeal
DMARD Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug
dsDNA Double stranded DNA
ELISA Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays
ESR Erythrocyte sedimentation rate
EULAR European League Against Rheumatism
HAQ Health Assessment Questionnaire
IBD Inflammatory bowel disease
IgG Immunoglobulin G
xvii
xviii Abbreviations
ILD Interstitial lung disease

JAK Janus kinase
MBDA Multi-biomarker disease activity
MRI Magnetic resonance imaging
NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NSAID Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug
OA Osteoarthritis
PDE4 Phosphodiesterase 4
PsARC Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria
RA Rheumatoid arthritis
RF Rheumatoid factor
RRP Rapid radiological progression
SDAI Simplified Disease Activity Index
SE Shared epitope
SLE Systemic lupus erythematosus
SMR Standardised mortality ratio
STAT Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription
SyK Spleen tyrosine kinase
TENS Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
TNF- Tumour necrosis factor-alpha
VAS Visual analogue scale
Chapter 1
An Overview of Inflammatory
Arthritis
Abstract Inflammatory arthritis spans a number of diseases.

The most prevalent is rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Others
include psoriatic arthritis (PsA), reactive arthritis, ankylosing
spondylitis (AS) and arthritis in patients with inflammatory
bowel disease (IBD). All represent complex disorders, arising
from genetic and environmental risk factors. Their treatment
is broadly similar, which is the primary reason for consider-
ing them together under the umbrella term of inflammatory
arthropathies. There is no single diagnostic test for any of
the inflammatory arthropathies. Classification criteria exist,
which provide a standardised approach for identifying indi-
viduals with a high probability of having a disease for enrol-
ment into research studies. They are often used in clinical
practice to aid diagnosis although the gold standard remains
the opinion of an experienced rheumatologist. This chapter
will provide an overview of the different types of inflamma-
tory arthritis, their historical perspectives, and how they are
diagnosed and classified.
Keywords Inflammatory Arthritis Historical Perspective

Diagnosis Classification Criteria
I.C. Scott et al., Inflammatory Arthritis in Clinical Practice, 1

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_1,
2 Chapter 1. An Overview of Inflammatory Arthritis
Introduction
The inflammatory arthropathies are a group of disorders
characterised by joint pain and swelling. Their similar treat-
ments, which include disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs
(DMARDs) and biologic agents, mean they are often consid-
ered together. Their serological and extra-articular manifes-
tations help to differentiate them. This chapter will provide
an overview of the inflammatory arthropathies, with a
specific focus on their subtypes and how they are diagnosed.
What Are the Inflammatory Arthropathies?

Inflammatory arthritis spans a number of diseases. The most
prevalent is rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Others include psori-
atic arthritis (PsA), reactive arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis
(AS) and arthritis in patients with inflammatory bowel dis-
ease (IBD).
A number of disorders in which inflammatory arthritis is
sometimes seen, are not usually considered to be a part of the
inflammatory arthropathies. These disorders include:
Arthritis occurring in patients with connective tissue dis-
eases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and
scleroderma.
Arthritis due to crystals, mainly gout and pyrophosphate
deposition disease.
Osteoarthritis (OA), which although usually non-
inflammatory, can sometimes have inflammatory features.
Arthritis due to known viral infections
Bacterial arthritis and arthritis due to other infective
agents.
A number of uncommon disorders, like adult onset Stills
disease.
The known causal factors for inflammatory arthritis
include genetic risks (particularly in RA and AS), exposure
to infection (particularly in reactive arthritis), environmental
Historical Perspectives 3
factors (particularly smoking in RA) and demographic fac-

tors (such as age and sex). Most of the diseases are thought to
involve autoimmune triggers and immunological mecha-
nisms. There has been extensive speculation about the roles
of infective or viral triggers, but no firm conclusions have
been reached.
Treatment of these disorders is broadly similar. All respond
to symptomatic treatment with analgesics and anti-
inflammatory drugs. DMARDs and biologics are often used to
both improve symptoms and reduce arthritis disease activity.
Non-pharmacological therapies such as exercise and physio-
therapy are also recommended. The similar management of
these diseases is the main reason for considering them together
under the umbrella term of inflammatory arthropathies.
The spondyloarthropathies are best considered to form a
spectrum of diseases characterised by several key features
comprising enthesitis, iritis, spinal involvement, the presence
of HLA-B27 and absence of rheumatoid factor (RF). Overlap
between these disorders is common with many AS patients
having microscopic colitis on colonic biopsy. To an extent it is
the presence of associated features outside the joints (termed
extra-articular features) that differentiates them. However, in
many patients it may be difficult to tell them apart, and often
they are considered to be undifferentiated.
Historical Perspectives
Most types of inflammatory arthritis were identified in the
nineteenth century, though their exact classification was only
finalised in the last 50 years. Prior to 1850 there was consider-
able uncertainty about how to differentiate different forms of
arthritis, and a number of complex, somewhat confusing
names were used, such as chronic rheumatic gout. Rheumatic
fever, which was commonplace at that time, also caused con-
siderable uncertainly.
The concept of rheumatoid arthritis dates from Victorian
times and the term was introduced by Sir Archibald Garrod,
an academic clinician in London, to distinguish the disease

from gout and rheumatic fever. It took many years before the
term RA achieved universal recognition. It was not officially
taken up by the Empire Rheumatism Council until the 1920s
and by the American Rheumatism Association in the 1940s.
The roots of seronegative arthritis can be traced back fur-
ther to antiquity. AS was present in ancient Egypt and has
been identified in mummified remains. There is evidence that
several pharaohs including Rameses II (The Great, 1290
1221BC) had AS. PsA may also have been an ancient disease;
skeletons from early Christian society, in a fifth century AD
Byzantine monastery in the Judean Desert contained fea-
tures of PsA. Reactive arthritis has a more recent provenance.
Although there have been suggestions that Christopher
Columbus may have had reactive arthritis, this is speculative.
It was first noted associated with venereal disease at the end
of the eighteenth century. These disorders were often redis-
covered. There are several good examples from the 1914
1918 European war. In 1916, two French physicians, Fiessinger
and Leroy described four cases of conjunctivitis and arthritis
after diarrhoeal illness. The same year Reiter reported a
young officer in the Balkan front who after acute diarrhoea
developed arthritis, urethritis and conjunctivitis.
Diagnosis
The Concept of Classification Criteria
There are no diagnostic criteria for any of the inflammatory

arthropathies. This is because there is no single test by which
any of the diseases can be definitively diagnosed. Classification
criteria however exist, which provide a standardised approach
for identifying individuals with a high probability of having a
disease for enrolment into research studies. They are often
used in clinical practice to aid diagnosis although the gold stan-
dard remains the opinion of an experienced rheumatologist.
Diagnosis 5
Rheumatoid Arthritis
It is usually straightforward to diagnose RA. Sometimes it can

be problematic, particularly when there are non-specific pre-
senting features. One difficulty is the absence of definitive labo-
ratory tests and confirmatory physical findings in early disease.
For the last few decades the internationally accepted classifica-
tion criteria was the 1987 American College of Rheumatology
(ACR) criteria [1]. According to these RA is considered to be
present when 4 of 7 qualifying criteria are met (Table 1.1).
Although these criteria have high overall sensitivity and
specificity, because they were developed from patients with
established RA they lack accuracy in diagnosing RA in its
early stages. They therefore have limited value in distinguish-
ing new-onset RA from a self-limiting arthritis. The last few
years have seen a major change in the paradigm of RA treat-
ment towards early diagnosis and prompt intensive treat-
ment. The RA classification criteria were therefore recently
updated in 2010 by a joint working group of the ACR and
European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) to facili-
tate the early identification of RA [2]. These new criteria
classify the presence of RA based on synovitis in at least 1
joint, the absence of an alternative diagnosis and the achieve-
ment of a total score of at least 6 (from a possible score of 10)
from marks across four domains (Table 1.1).
Ankylosing Spondylitis
AS is often considered to be the main spondyloarthritis. Its

predominant features are in the spine, with evidence of spi-
nal inflammation that focuses on the sacroiliac joints, termed
sacroiliitis. Other features include evidence of inflammation
at the insertion of tendons into bone termed enthesitis.
Finally a minority of patients have a large joint peripheral
arthritis. Conventional classification criteria focus on spinal
symptoms and x-ray features of sacroiliitis, the most
6
Table 1.1 Comparison of 1987 and 2010 criteria for classifying rheumatoid arthritis
1987 American College of 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against
Rheumatology Criteria for classifying Rheumatism Classification Criteria for RA
RA
1. Morning stiffness lasting longer Definite clinical synovitis (swelling) of at least 1 joint and Synovitis not
Chapter 1.
than 1 h before improvement better explained by another pathology and Score of 6/10 from the
following four domains:
2. Arthritis involving three or more 1. Joint involvement
joint areas
1 large joint = 0 points
210 large joints = 1 point
13 small joints = 2 points
410 small joints = 3 points
>10 joints (at least 1 small joint) = 5 points
3. Arthritis of the hand joints 2. Serology
Negative RF and negative ACPA = 0 points
Low-positive RF or low-positive ACPA = 2 points
An Overview of Inflammatory Arthritis
High-positive RF or high-positive ACPA = 3 points

4. Symmetrical arthritis 3. Acute-phase response
Normal CRP and ESR = 0 points
Abnormal CRP or ESR = 1 point
5. Rheumatoid nodules 4. Duration of symptoms
<6 weeks = 0 points
6 weeks = 1 point
6. Positive serum RF
7. Radiographic evidence of RA
To diagnose RA criteria 14 must To diagnose RA patients must satisfy all three criteria. Low positive
have been present for at least 6 weeks; serological tests refer to values 3 times the upper limit of normal; high
4 or more criteria must be present. The positive refers to values >3 times the upper limit of normal. RF = Rheumatoid
diagnosis of RA should not be made Factor; ACPA = Antibodies to Citrullinated Protein Antigens
by criteria alone if another systemic
disease associated with arthritis is
definitely present
Table adapted from 1987 ACR and 2010 ACR/EULAR RA classification criteria [1, 2]
Diagnosis
7
Table 1.2 Modified New York criteria for classifying ankylosing

spondylitis
Clinical features Radiological changes
Limited movement of Severe (grade 34) unilateral
lumbar spine in three sacroiliitis or moderate (grade 2)
planes bilateral sacroiliitis
Inflammatory lower back
pain
Reduced chest expansion

Table based on Modified New York classification criteria reported
by van der Linden et al. [3]
Inflammatory back pain is defined as lower back pain for 3 months,
improved by exercise and not relieved by rest. To be classified with defi-
nite AS at least one clinical and radiological criterion must be fulfilled
established of which is the 1984 modified New York criteria

(Table 1.2) [3]. This requires the patient to have sacroillitis
on plain X-rays alongside clinical features of inflammatory
spinal pain and/or restricted spinal or thoracic cage
movement.
The predominant problem with the modified New York
classification criteria is that it can take several years for sac-
roiliitis to develop on plain X-ray. The criteria therefore lack
sensitivity in early disease with some patients taking up to
8 years from disease onset to fulfil the criteria by which point
they may have significant spinal fusion. This has led to the
development of updated criteria, which have been validated
in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society
(ASAS) study [4]. These criteria include patients with and
without radiographic changes and focus on sacroiliitis seen
on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which can be seen
early on in the disease process (Table 1.3). MRI sacroiliitis
has a close correlation with the later appearance of sacroiliitis
on plain radiographs and has an estimated sensitivity and
specificity of 90 %.
Diagnosis 9
Table 1.3 Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society

(ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis [4]
Radiological criteria Genetic criteria
Radiographic or MRI Presence of HLA-B27 AND 2
evidence of sacroiliitis spondyloarthritis features
AND 1 spondyloarthritis
feature
Patients are classified as having an axial spondyloarthritis if
they have back pain of 3 months duration and age of symptom
onset <45 years and meet the radiological or genetic criteria
Spondyloarthritis features comprise inflammatory back
pain, arthritis, enthesitis (heel), uveitis, dactylitis, psoriasis,
inflammatory bowel disease, good NSAID response, familial
history of spondyloarthritis, HLA-B27 positive, raised CRP
Psoriatic Arthritis
There has been less agreement on the criteria for classifying

PsA compared with other common forms of inflammatory
arthritis. The Moll and Wright classification criteria have often
been applied, which require patients to have an inflammatory
arthritis, psoriasis and to usually be seronegative for RF [5].
They divide patients into five subgroups based on their pattern
of joint involvement, which comprise distal interphalangeal
(DIP) joint arthritis, asymmetrical oligoarthritis, polyarthritis,
spondylitis and arthritis mutilans. These criteria lack specificity
with a proportion of patients that fulfil the criteria for psoriatic
polyarthritis probably having RA with coincidental psoriasis.
More recently the classification criteria for PsA (CASPAR)
criteria have been introduced (Fig. 1.1) [6]. These are gaining
acceptance as a useful diagnostic tool in clinical practice. To
fulfil these criteria patients must have inflammatory articular
disease (either of the joint, spine or entheseal) and score 3
points from five separate categories comprising past medical or
familial evidence of psoriasis, characteristic nail changes, a
Inflammatory articular disease

Joint, Spine or Entheseal
AND
Score 3 from 5 domains
Domain 1: Domain 2: Nail Domain 3: Domain 4: Domain 5:

psoriasis dystrophy serology dactylitis radiological
Current Onycholysis, Negative Current or past Characteristic
psoriasis pitting and Rheumatoid datcylitis radiographic
= 2 points hyperkeratosis Factor Test observed by a changes on plain
Past medical or on current = 1 point rheumatologist radiographs of
family history of examination = 1 point the hands or feet
psoriasis = 1 point = 1 point
= 1 point
Figure 1.1 The Classification Criteria for PsA (CASPAR) criteria

(Taylor et al. [6]
negative RF, dactylitis or characteristic radiological changes.

These criteria have a sensitivity of 91 % and specificity of 99 %.
They recognise the fact that in a proportion of cases PsA can
precede the onset of skin disease and therefore do not require
psoriasis to be present in order to be classified as having PsA.
Other Spondyloarthropathies
There is less agreement on the criteria for diagnosing reactive

arthritis, enteropathic arthritis and undifferentiated seroneg-
ative arthropathies. Reactive arthritis is usually considered
present in patients with an inflammatory peripheral joint
oligoarthritis or axial arthritis and a recent episode of gastro-
enteritis caused by Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter, or
Yersinia, or genitourinary tract infection with Chlamydia
trachomatis. Enteropathic arthritis is considered present in
patients with features of a spondyloarthritis in the context of
diagnosed IBD.
References 11
References
1. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF,
Cooper NS, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987
revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum. 1988;31:31524.
2. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham 3rd
CO, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American
College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism
collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:256981.
3. van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A. Evaluation of diagnos-
tic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification
of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum. 1984;27:3618.
4. Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, Listing J, Akkoc N,
Brandt J,et al.The development ofAssessment of SpondyloArthritis
international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloar-
thritis (part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis.
2009;68:77783.
5. Moll JM, Wright V. Psoriatic arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum.
1973;3:5578.
6. Taylor W, Gladman D, Helliwell P, Marchesoni A, Mease P,
Mielants H, et al. Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis:
development of new criteria from a large international study.
Chapter 2
Epidemiology and Pathology
Abstract RA and the seronegative spondyloarthropathies

are relatively common disorders with a prevalence of approx-
imately 1 % in European and North American populations.
They are complex diseases that are considered to result from
environmental exposures in genetically predisposed indi-
viduals. The main genetic risk factors are in the HLA region,
with HLA-DRB1 and HLA-B27 alleles being the dominant
risk factors for RA and AS, respectively. Environmental fac-
tors play an important role in RA development, particularly
exposure to cigarette smoke. A broad range of immune
system components are involved in the precipitation and
perpetuation of the inflammatory arthropathies, particularly
cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor-. This chapter will
provide an overview of the epidemiology of the inflamma-
tory arthropathies, their underlying genetic and environmen-
tal risk factors, alongside the immunopathological changes
that characterise them.
Keywords Prevalence Complex Disease HLA Risk

Cigarette Smoking Cytokines

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_2,
14 Chapter 2. Epidemiology and Pathology
Epidemiology of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Although RA is an international problem, there is a wide
geographical variation in its prevalence. It is relatively com-
mon in European and North American populations, with a
widely quoted prevalence (the proportion of individuals with
the disease at any given time) of 1 % in the UK. By contrast
the disease is much rarer in developing countries such as
Nigeria and Pakistan where its prevalence is estimated at less
than 0.5 % [1]. These variations probably reflect differences
in genetic risks and environmental exposures. There is some
evidence that the prevalence of RA is changing. A seminal
study by Lawrence in 1961 found a prevalence of RA in two
Northern UK areas of 1 % [2]. A more recent study in 2002
of the Norfolk population estimated the adult prevalence of
RA to be 0.81 % [3]. Comparing the prevalence of RA in the
Lawrence and Norfolk studies stratified by age group and
gender suggests the fall in prevalence is confined to women
(Fig. 2.1).
The age distribution of RA is unimodal with a peak inci-
dence between the fourth and sixth decade. Compared to
men, women are two to three times more likely to develop
RA. As RA is a chronic disease the incidence of new cases is
relatively rare.
Epidemiology of Seronegative Arthritis

There is a strong association between seronegative arthritis
and HLA-B27. The presence of this genotype and male sex
are dominant factors in the epidemiology of seronegative
arthritis. The prevalence of spondyloarthropathies in
European and North American white populations may be as
high as 1.5 %, though most experts consider it is below 1 %.
There is an excess of males in almost all subsets of spondylo-
arthropathy. Geographical variation in the prevalence of
spondyloarthropathies reflects variations in the number of
people who are HLA-B27 positive. AS and undifferentiated
Epidemiology of Seronegative Arthritis 15
Females
5
4.5
4
Prevalence (%) ofRA
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1644 4564 6574 Over 75
Age (years)
Males
1.8
1.6
1.4
Prevalence (%) ofRA
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4564 Over 65
Age (years)
Lawrence's study Norfolk study
Figure 2.1 Comparing the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis from

two studies Undertaken in 1961 (Lawrence Study) and 2002
(Norfolk Study) (Figure adapted using data reported by Lawrence
[2] and Symmons et al. [3])
spondyloarthropathy are the most frequent spondyloarthrop-

athy subtypes. Individuals with inflammatory back pain who
are HLA-B27 positive have a 50 % likelihood of having
sacroiliitis.
Aetiology of Inflammatory Arthritis

The inflammatory arthropathies are considered to be com-
plex disorders that occur when genetically predisposed indi-
viduals are exposed to environmental factors. These
gene-environment risk factors interact causing changes in the
immune system and a subsequent inflammatory arthritis.
Genetic and environmental risk factors are best defined for

RA, particularly the subtype in which autoantibodies RF or
antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA) are
present, termed seropositive RA. Most genetic risk for sero-
positive RA is derived from the HLA region, specifically a
group of alleles called HLA-DRB1. These encode the HLA
class II DR-chain, which plays a vital role in the presenta-
tion of antigens to T cells. HLA-DRB1 alleles encoding a
group of amino acid sequences (QRRAA, RRRAA and
QKRAA) spanning positions 7074 of the HLA-DR1 mol-
ecule particularly increase the risk of seropositive RA [4].
These alleles are known as the shared epitope (SE) alleles. A
recent large analysis combining genetic studies of patients
with and without RA has identified 100 genetic markers that
predispose to RA development that are external to the HLA
region [5].
The main environmental risk factor for seropositive RA is
smoking. A dose-response relationship is seen, whereby the
risk of RA increases as more cigarettes are smoked over time.
This risk is especially increased in individuals carrying SE
alleles. Other environmental risk factors include alcohol
abstinence, nulliparity and a history of never breast-feeding.
Pathology of Inflammatory Arthritis 17
Seronegative Spondyloarthropathies
The dominant genetic risk factor for the seronegative spon-

dyloarthropathies is HLA-B27. This is particularly true in AS,
with most AS populations studied having HLA-B27 present
in over 80 % of individuals [6]. However, carrying this allele
does not mean that AS will develop, with less than 5 % of
HLA-B27 carriers developing AS [6].
With the exception of the role that genitourinary or gas-
trointestinal infections play in triggering a reactive arthritis,
environmental risk factors for the seronegative spondyloar-
thropathies are less well defined when compared with
RA. Whilst it has long been postulated that an infectious
agent may trigger these conditions through interactions with
HLA-B27 no single microbe has been identified consistently
across patient populations. A recent population-based study
suggests that obesity is associated with an increased risk of
PsA [7].
Pathology of Inflammatory Arthritis

Histology
Inflammatory synovitis is the key pathological feature in

RA. Its characteristics are synovial hyperplasia, inflamma-
tory cell infiltration and vascularity. Initially oedema and
fibrin deposition predominate. Subsequently there is synovial
lining layer hyperplasia involving macrophage-like and
fibroblast-like synoviocytes. This hyperplasia is accompanied
by infiltration of T cells, B cells, macrophages and plasma
cells in the sublining layer. Endothelial cells in the blood ves-
sels transform to form high endothelial venules.
Pannus formation, with the formation of locally invasive
synovial tissue, is the other characteristic feature of RA. It
underlies cartilage damage and joint erosions. The RA pan-
nus is composed of mononuclear cells and fibroblasts. It has
high levels of proteolytic enzyme expression, which allows
Synovium
Cartilage
Bone
Normal
Inflammatory
Pannus
Inflammatory effusion
Thickened synovium
Figure 2.2 Normal and inflamed synovium in inflammatory arthritis
the pannus to penetrate cartilage. In late RA the pannus

becomes fibrotic, with minimally vascularised pannus and
collagen fibres overlying articular cartilage. These changes
are shown in Fig. 2.2.
Lymphocytes
Many inflammatory cells in the synovial sublining layer are

lymphocytes, especially T cells. They sometimes form aggre-
gates like those of lymph nodes. Despite the presence of
many T cells in the RA synovium, these T cells probably do
not directly cause synovitis in the microenvironment of the
joint. Instead there appears to be recruitment of previously
stimulated, mature T cells into the joint.
Pathology of Inflammatory Arthritis 19
Peripheral tissues Inflamed synovium

Stimulus
Cells
Macrophages
fibroblasts
B cells
Activstion of innate immunity Chondrocytes
Osteoclasts
Mediators
Cytokines
Dendritic (IL1, IL6, TNF)
cell Chemokines
Prostaglandins
Proteases
Migration
Co-stimulation
Recruitment
T cell
Antigen
presenting Activated T
cell cells
Lymph node
Figure 2.3 Roles of inflammatory cells and cytokines in inflamma-

tory arthritis
Cytokines
Cytokines are small soluble proteins involved in communica-

tion between cells participating in immune responses. They
mediate cell division, differentiation and chemotaxis. Some
cytokines are pro-inflammatory and others are anti-
inflammatory. Two cytokines tumour necrosis factor-alpha
(TNF-) and interleukin-1 are present in large quantities in
RA synovial fluid and tissue. These cytokines have become
therapeutic targets. The roles of cytokines and inflammatory
cells are shown in Fig. 2.3.
Chemokines
These small chemoattractant proteins have prominent roles

in leukocyte recruitment and activation at inflammatory sites.
Numerous chemokines are active in RA synovium, though
their functions are not fully elucidated.
Metalloproteinases
High levels of these destructive enzymes are produced by RA

synovial lining cells. There is a large family of matrix metal-
loproteinase enzymes. They are involved in remodelling and
destruction of the extracellular matrix and articular cartilage.
Their activities are modulated by tissue inhibitors of metallo-
proteinases, serine proteinase inhibitors and 2-macroglobulin.
Adhesion Molecules, Angiogenesis and Other

Mediators
Adhesion molecules are involved in recruitment of inflamma-
tory cells in RA. They enable cells to adhere both to each
other and to the extracellular matrix. Expression of adhesion
molecules in synovial tissue contributes to the recruitment
and retention of inflammatory cells. Angiogenesis, the forma-
tion of new blood vessels, is active in RA, particularly the
early stages. Newly formed vessels are needed to sustain the
hypertrophied synovium. It is regulated by many inducers and
inhibitors. These include cytokines, growth factors and soluble
adhesion molecules. RA synovitis is mediated by many other
enzymes including cyclo-oxygenases, nitric oxide synthase and
neutral proteases. Their precise roles are uncertain.
References
1. Kalla AA, Tikly M. Rheumatoid arthritis in the developing world.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003;17:86375.
References 21
2. Lawrence JS. Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum

Dis. 1961;20:117.
3. Symmons D, Turner G, Webb R, Asten P, Barrett E, Lunt M, et al.
The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom:
new estimates for a new century. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002;
41:793800.
4. Gregersen PK, Silver J, Winchester RJ. The shared epitope
hypothesis. An approach to understanding the molecular genetics
of susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum.
1987;30:120513.
5. Okada Y, Wu D, Trynka G, Towfique R, Chikashi T, Katsunori I,
et al. Genetics of rheumatoid arthritis contributes to biology and
drug discovery. Nat Genet. 2013;506:37681.
6. Brown MA. Genetics of ankylosing spondylitis. Curr Opin
Rheumatol. 2010;22:12632.
7. Love TJ, Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Wall-Burns L, Ogdie A, Gelfand JM,
et al. Obesity and the risk of psoriatic arthritis: a population-
based study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:12737.
Chapter 3
Clinical Features
Abstract The hallmark of the inflammatory arthropathies is

joint inflammation, characterised by joint pain and swelling.
Different disease types affect different joints. RA classically
affects the peripheral small joints in a symmetrical fashion.
By contrast the seronegative spondyloarthropathies tend to
affect the spine and peripheral large joints in an asymmetrical
fashion. Extra-articular features are common in all forms of
inflammatory arthritis. In RA almost any body system can be
affected, with manifestations ranging from rheumatoid nod-
ules to mononeuritis multiplex. The classical extra-articular
manifestation of the seronegative spondyloarthropathies is
anterior uveitis. This chapter will discuss the clinical mani-
festations of the inflammatory arthropathies, spanning their
articular and extra-articular features.
Keywords Synovitis Tenosynovitis Tender Joints

Enthesitis Extra-Articular Involvement

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_3,
24 Chapter 3. Clinical Features
Synovitis of Peripheral Joints
Symptoms
The main symptoms of inflammatory arthritis result from

inflammation of the joints. Pain is a dominant symptom both
within the joints and more diffusely around the joints. The
joints are also swollen and tender and they are difficult to
move.
The symptoms often show diurnal variation. Patients have
most problems early in the morning. As a result they usually
have prolonged morning stiffness. This can last up to several
hours. It usually lasts over 30 minutes. The exact nature of the
stiffness can be difficult to define and not all patients describe
it in the same manner.
Joint Swelling and Tenderness
The characteristic features of inflamed joints are swelling and

tenderness [1]. Joint swelling is soft tissue swelling detected
along joint margins. When there is a synovial effusion, a joint
is inevitably swollen. However, effusions are not mandatory
features of a swollen joint. The characteristic feature of a
swollen joint is fluctuation, when fluid is displaced by pres-
sure in two planes.
Bony swelling and joint deformities often complicate the
counting of swollen joints. Neither of these indicates the pres-
ence of joint swelling, although they can be present if joints
are swollen. In late disease it is often difficult to differentiate
swollen from deformed inactive joints.
An associated clinical feature that accompanies joint
swelling is swelling of tendon sheaths termed tenosynovitis.
It involves an identical pathological process.
Joint tenderness is indicated by inducing pain in a joint at
rest with pressure. Judging the correct amount of pressure to
elicit tenderness depends on both the examiner and the
patient. Generally sufficient pressure should be exerted by
Peripheral Joints Involved 25
the examiners thumb and index finger to cause whitening

of the examiners nail bed. Too little pressure may fail to elicit
joint tenderness even though it is present. Too much pressure
will result in pain in everyone. The level of pressure required
to elicit joint tenderness varies from one patient to another.
In some joints, like the hip, tenderness is best identified
through movement.
Peripheral Joints Involved

RA is usually a symmetrical polyarthritis. It mainly involves
the hand, wrists, feet, and some large joints, particularly the
knees. In some patients it only involves a few joints at the
outset, though more become involved over time [2, 3].
Other forms of inflammatory arthritis usually involve fewer
joints. The distribution of joint involvement is also less obviously
symmetrical [4]. Each form of inflammatory arthritis has its own
relatively characteristic distribution of joint involvement.
Hand involvement is particularly characteristic of RA
(Fig. 3.1). It usually involves the metacarpophalangeal, proxi-
mal interphalangeal, thumb interphalangeal and wrist joints.
The distal interphalangeal joints can be affected when there
is coexisting disease in other hand joints.
Involvement of the tendons is also characteristic.
Tenosynovitis of flexor tendons reduces finger flexion and
strength. Nodular thickenings in tendon sheaths may result in
a trigger finger.
Damage to the wrists causes compaction of bone at the
small wrist joints. In late disease this damage may progress to
bony ankylosis. Historically in late RA characteristic defor-
mities developed in the hands. There was ulnar deviation of
the fingers, subluxation of the metacarpophalangeal joints,
hyperextension of the proximal interphalangeal with flexion
of the distal joints (swan-neck deformity), flexion of the
Figure 3.1 An inflamed hand in early rheumatoid arthritis
proximal interphalangeal with hyperextension of the distal

joints (boutonnire deformity), and a Z-shaped deformity of
the thumb. These changes are seen less often in the
modern era.
The small joints of the feet are involved at an early stage,
causing considerable difficulty walking. As the disease pro-
gresses a complex series of changes occurs in the feet includ-
ing spreading of the forefoot, dorsal subluxation of toes and
subluxation of metatarsal heads to a subcutaneous site on the
plantar surface. In some cases additional hallux valgus leads to
stacking of the second and third toes on top of the great toe.
The ankle joint itself is rarely involved in RA, although it
is sometimes damaged in late disease. By contrast the subta-
lar joint is often involved. Its involvement results in prona-
tion deformities and eversion of the foot. The reason for such
a different level of involvement in adjacent joint is most
likely the effects of microtrauma on the severity of synovitis.
The ankle is in a relatively atraumatic environment compared
to the subtalar joint.
Figure 3.2 Knee involvement in rheumatoid arthritis
Knee involvement is common in RA including both early

and late disease. Quadriceps wasting and loss of full exten-
sion both occur in the first stages of the disease.
In some patients there may be large effusions (Fig. 3.2),
and these can result in a popliteal or Bakers cyst. Synovial
fluid entering these popliteal cysts does not readily return
into the knee. One consequence is that high pressures may be
generated and the cyst can rupture into the calf, resulting in
considerable pain and discomfort.
RA often affects the synovium of the glenohumeral joint
in the shoulder and its associated bursae. In addition it
involves the rotator cuff together with its associated muscles
on the chest wall. Weakness of the rotator cuff apparatus may
result in shoulder subluxation.
The hips are rarely involved in the early stages of
RA. However, their involvement is more frequent in late
disease. Eventually about half of rheumatoid patients develop
some evidence of hip disease. About 20 % of patients develop
significant levels of hip pain with resulting joint failure.
In a small number of patients the femoral head collapses.

The acetabulum is remodelled and pushed medially. This
results in protrusio acetabuli. The deformity usually pro-
gresses until the femoral neck impinges on side of pelvis.
Cervical pain is common in the early phases of RA. This
pain is mainly due to muscle spasm. However, over the
subsequent course of their disease up to 90 % of patients
develop some cervical spine involvement. The likelihood
of severe cervical spine involvement is increased in long
standing disease and when many joints are involved.
Significant subluxations occur in about one third of cases.
Neurological deterioration can be irreversible in such
cases, and it is therefore important to look for subtle signs
of early neurological involvement. In addition to painful
limitation of neck motion, warning signs of significant cer-
vical involvement include sub-occipital pain, paraesthesia
in hands and feet, urinary retention and incontinence and
involuntary leg spasms.
Psoriatic Arthritis
PsA has highly variable clinical features and there are several
different patterns of joint involvement [5]. These tend to
change over time.
Conventionally PsA is divided into five different clinical
subtypes. These clinical subtypes comprise:
1. Polyarthritis: many joints are involved and the clinical pat-
tern is very similar to RA
2. Oligoarthritis: in most patients with PsA only two or three
joints are involved. As a consequence the arthritis seems
very asymmetric.
3. Monoarthritis: as the classification indicates only one joint
is involved. Over time the pattern may change with the
involvement of more joints.
4. Distal interphalangeal joint arthritis: this is a highly char-
acteristic arthritis of the distal interphalangeal joints of the
hands. It can be very destructive.
Figure 3.3 Psoriatic arthritis involving the thumb joint
5. Arthritis mutilans: this is the rare but highly progressive

and destructive form of arthritis which is seen in occasional
patients (Fig. 3.3).
Other Forms of Spondyloarthropathies
Peripheral joint inflammation can be the presenting feature

in many patients with a spondyloarthritis. It can also occur
against the background of established inflammatory back
disease in AS.
In these seronegative types of arthritis usually only one or
two joints are involved. Patients have an oligoarthritis, which
is mainly seen in lower limbs. It is usually asymmetric in dis-
tribution. The most commonly involved joints are the knees.
In some patients the elbows can also be involved.
Enthesitis
The entheses are the insertion of tendons into bone [6]. These
are frequently inflamed in spondyloarthritis. Such inflamma-
tion is known as an enthesitis. It involves sites such as the
insertion of the Achilles tendon Achilles tendonitis and

insertion of the plantar fascia plantar fasciitis. Other sites
involved include the greater trochanters, the pelvic brim, and
the epicondyles.
In addition some patients with PsA have a dactylitis, which
is colloquially termed sausage fingers. This is a more diffuse
inflammatory change than either arthritis or enthesitis and is
typical of PsA.
Spinal Disease
Involvement of the sacroiliac joints, other cartilaginous joints
like the pubic symphysis, and the spine is the central feature
of AS and other seronegative spondyloarthropathies [7]. It is
less common, and very different, in RA.
AS usually starts with back pain and stiffness of insidious

onset. It mainly affects males and begins in late adolescence
and early adult life. These symptoms reflect the combination
of sacroiliac joint and spinal disease. There is spinal pain and
stiffness and loss of mobility. These symptoms are usually
intermittent in the early stages of the disease. They reflect
both spinal inflammation and structural damage. Inflammation
includes spondylitis, spondylodiscitis and spondyloarthritis.
The structural changes are usually due to oestoproliferation
rather than destruction. Ankylosis and syndesmophytes are
characteristic findings.
In the early stages of AS the pain may be a dull ache in the
buttock region, which reflects involvement of the sacroiliac
joints. Initially it may be unilateral or intermittent. However,
over time it becomes persistent and bilateral. There may be
accompanying sacroiliac and spinal tenderness. In some
patients low back pain can be minimal. Occasionally pain is
more marked in the thoracic or cervical spine.
Systemic Features 31
In late disease the whole spine may be involved with pain

and reduced movement. Spinal fusion is a serious, though rel-
atively uncommon, consequence of persisting spinal inflam-
mation in AS.
Anterior chest wall pain, reflecting involvement of the
manubriosternal joints and other joints, is relatively common
in AS but is often overlooked as a clinical problem. It affects
about one third of patients to a greater or lesser extent.
Other Types of Spondyloarthritis
PsA, reactive arthritis, IBD-related or enteropathic arthritis

and undifferentiated spondyloarthritis can all have an element
of inflammatory back changes as part of their clinical spectrum.
This is broadly similar to the findings in AS, though less severe.
The cervical spine is often involved in RA [8], as there are a

number of important synovial joints at this site. As a result cer-
vical instability is an important clinical problem, though it only
affects a minority of patients to any great extent. The rest of the
spine is not specifically affected by RA, though occasional
patients may have facet joint disease. Patients with RA may
have back pain in the same way as the general population.
Systemic Features
Arthritis causes general ill health in addition to the synovitis.
Patients feel tired and lack energy. They also often have sys-
temic features of a flu-like illness. These include loss of
appetite, inability to sleep, some weight loss and, in some
cases a low-grade fever. These systemic features are most
noticeable at the onset of arthritis, especially in cases with an
explosive onset. It is likely they represent the non-specific
inflammatory response of immunity.
Fatigue is closely associated with pain and systemic

involvement in arthritis. It is not directly related to the arthri-
tis, but is has a major impact on patient well-being and health
status.
Clinical Course
Onset of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Most patients have an insidious onset [9]. They develop

features of arthritis over weeks or months. Their initial symp-
toms may be systemic, articular or both. Some cases initially
describe fatigue, malaise, puffy hands and diffuse joint pain,
with joints becoming involved later. In 510 % there is an
acute onset with the explosive beginning of symptoms over
a few days. Some patients pinpoint the onset of symptoms to
a specific time or activity. Symptoms rapidly progress over
several days or weeks and there may be marked systemic
symptoms. Between these extremes about 20 % have an
intermediate onset over days and weeks.
Occasional patients have atypical onsets. Examples include
palindromic, polymyalgic and monoarticular onsets. Cases
with polymyalgic onsets present with shoulder girdle pain
and prolonged morning stiffness.
By contrast palindromic rheumatism can be the initial
manifestation of many different rheumatic disorders organic
processes, and may never evolve into significant disease. It is
characterised by pain, which usually begins in one joint or in
periarticular tissues. Symptoms worsen for several hours or
days and are associated with swelling. Then symptoms resolve
without any residual. In some cases this pattern gradually
transforms into typical RA [10].
Finally a few cases present with either a monoarticular
onset or an asymmetric pattern of disease, usually involving
the knee joints. This is seen in about 1020 % of cases, but
usually progresses into the more typical polyarticular pat-
tern of RA.
Clinical Course 33
Established Rheumatoid Arthritis
RA is usually considered to have three different courses [11].

Most patients have a progressive course. These patients have
persistent joint inflammation, progressive joint damage and
gradual increases in disability. However there can be major
fluctuations in disease severity over time and not all patients
show inexorable progression.
A minority of patients have intermittent disease courses.
These patients have intermittent episodes of arthritis, which
may last less than 1 year, followed by variable remissions.
These remissions can be brief or they may be long-lasting.
With modern intensive treatment more patients are achiev-
ing remission and having more intermittent disease courses.
Occasional patients have what has been termed malig-
nant disease. They have severe progressive arthritis which is
often accompanied by major extra-articular problems. It has
a potentially serious outcome, though modern intensive
treatment is usually able to control it.
Other Inflammatory Arthropathies
The other forms of inflammatory arthritis have similar onsets

to RA. They can develop suddenly or insidiously. However,
there are some important differences. Unlike RA they are
usually less severe and often enter remission.
Undifferentiated Early Arthritis
In the first few months or longer after the development of an

inflammatory arthritis it can be difficult to tell whether a
patient has early RA or another, potentially less severe form of
inflammatory arthritis. These patients are considered to have
an undifferentiated arthritis. It is usually best to consider
they are likely to develop into RA as watchful waiting may be
unhelpful in that it will result in the risk of under-treatment.
Figure 3.4 Rheumatoid nodules
Extra-articular Disease
Between 20 and 40 % of cases have extra-articular features of

RA [12]. These are most prominent in seropositive patients
with high RF titres. The extra-articular features vary in sever-
ity and duration, and only cause major problems in a few
cases. However, much of the morbidity and excess mortality
of RA is concentrated in patients with extra-articular disease.
Rheumatoid nodules are the most characteristic extra-
articular feature of RA (Fig. 3.4). They are subcutaneous nod-
ules of varying size from 5 mm to several centimetres. Nodules
effect about one quarter of cases. They are mainly seen in sero-
positive disease. Most are subcutaneous on extensor surfaces
like the olecranon process. They vary in consistency from soft
mobile masses to hard, rubbery masses attached to underlying
periosteum. Atypical nodules can be confusing; for example
sacral nodules may be confused with bedsores if the overlying
Extra-articular Disease 35
skin breaks down. Sometimes nodules cause local problems,

for example nodules in heart valves can precipitate heart fail-
ure. They do not usually require treatment, unless they ulcerate
or compress nerves. They may regress with standard therapy
though sometimes they persist or worsen during treatment.
Occasional patients treated with methotrexate develop accel-
erated rheumatoid nodulosis. In these patients multiple small
nodules develop in the fingers and hands.
Rheumatoid vasculitis is the other most characteristic extra-
articular feature of RA. Many of the other extra-articular
features of the disease can be viewed as being an expression
of rheumatoid vasculitis. About 15 % of patients develop
rheumatoid vasculitis. Its frequency is declining over time. It
mainly affects seropositive patients. Rheumatoid vasculitis
can affect any organ. However, most cases have cutaneous
features. These include focal digital ischemia, deep cutaneous
ulcers, petecchiae, purpura and peripheral gangrene. Isolated
digital vasculitis, with characteristic splinter-lesions around
nails, is a marker of severe disease that rarely causes problems
itself. By contrast systemic vasculitis can be a devastating com-
plication involving internal organs such as the bowel. Vasculitis
classically occurs in burned-out RA patients with nodular
and RF-positive destructive disease that is no longer active.
Occasionally vasculitis complicates early disease.
Neurological problems can involve both peripheral and
central nervous systems. They are often attributed to vascu-
litis affecting the vasa vasorum of nerves leading to ischemic
damage. This vasculitis of the blood vessels of nerves results
in neurovascular disease, which ranges from a mild sensory
neuropathy to a severe sensorimotor neuropathy. In some
patients there is a mononeuritis multiplex, in which a number
of different peripheral nerves become damaged. Central ner-
vous system vasculitis has been described but is extremely rare.
Local compression of peripheral nerves, particularly as part
of carpal tunnel syndrome is, by comparison, very common.
Finally cervical myelopathy due to atlanto-axial subluxation
occurs in occasional patients with long-standing disease. It is
due to a combination of local synovitis and bone deformity.
A range of eye problems can occur. These include

secondary Sjgrens syndrome, episcleritis, scleritis, keratitis
and retinopathy. Anterior scleritis can be diffuse, nodular or
necrotizing; this latter condition is also known as scleromala-
cia perforans. It involves degenerative thinning of the sclera
and if not treated can lead to scleral perforation.
Lung problems are common in RA [13]. Depending on
how they are classified they can affect 1025 % of patients.
They result in considerable morbidity. They are highly vari-
able problems. They include interstitial lung disease, small
airway disease, rheumatoid nodules, pleural effusion and
pulmonary vasculitis. Some patients with RA have coexisting
bronchiectasis. Patients with RA who smoke cigarettes are
more likely to have lung problems and their severity is likely
to be greater.
Cardiac disorders are also relatively common in RA [14].
All parts of the heart can be involved. Patients can have peri-
carditis, myocarditis, valvular disease and conduction defects
and arrhythmias. There is also an increased risk of ischemic
heart disease. In addition hypertension is relatively common
in RA, though how much this reflects the disease and how
much is due to its treatment is uncertain. Symptomatic peri-
carditis affects about 15 % of patients, and is particularly
common in seropositive men with RA.
Skin involvement includes palmar erythema, pyoderma
gangrenosum, vasculitic rashes and leg ulceration. Occasional
patients have Feltys syndrome (low white cell counts with
splenomegaly) or amyloid deposits.
Other Inflammatory Arthropathies
The spectrum of extra-articular disease is strikingly different

in the seronegative spondyloarthropathies compared to RA
[15]. Some of the extra-articular features in the spondyloar-
thropathies are part of the main diagnostic categorisation.
Patients with PsA have psoriasis. Patients with enteropathic
arthritis have IBD. Patients with reactive arthritis have
urethritis or diarrhoea.
References 37
Some of these condition-specific problems are seen in

other disorders of this group. For example, psoriasis may be
seen in reactive arthritis, when patients develop psoriatic
changes in the skin of their hands and feet. These changes are
termed keratoderma blenhoragicum. Another example is the
development of balanitis. The reaction overlaps with psoriatic
changes involving the glans penis. It is termed circinate bala-
nitis. It can occur together with urethritis, though this latter
problem has a different clinical course.
Inflammatory eye involvement is a relatively common and
potentially serious problem. Acute anterior uveitis occurs in
about 30 % of patients with spondyloarthritis. Its clinical
course is not directly related to the rheumatic condition. In
some patients eye inflammation precedes the spondylitis.
Anterior uveitis causes pain, redness of the eye and photo-
phobia. Its onset is usually acute. Conjunctivitis, episcleritis
and scleritis can all also occur in spondyloarthropathies. As
eye inflammation, particularly if it is recurrent, can lead to
visual loss, patients with this complication need prompt
specialist ophthalmic management.
Cardiac disease is seen in many patients with seronegative
spondyloarthritis. It is usually ischaemic heart disease and
hypertension, related to active inflammation, treatment and
smoking. A minority of patient have cardiac conduction
defects. An unusual but rare feature is aortic valve disease in
AS, which may result in aortic valve incompetence.
In longstanding spinal disease there may be chest wall
rigidity. This may impair lung function. Occasionally patients
with AS can present with upper zone pulmonary fibrosis.
Other chest problems include sleep apnoea and the develop-
ment of a spontaneous pneumothorax.
References
1. van der Heijde DM, van t Hof MA, van Riel PL, Theunisse LA,
Lubberts EW, van Leeuwen MA, et al. Judging disease activity in
clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis: first step in the develop-
ment of a disease activity score. Ann Rheum Dis. 1990;49:91620.
2. Scott DL, Wolfe F, Huizinga TW. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet.

2010;376:1094108.
3. Klarenbeek NB, Kerstens PJ, Huizinga TW, Dijkmans BA,
Allaart CF. Recent advances in the management of rheumatoid
arthritis. BMJ. 2010;341:c6942.
4. Helliwell PS, Hetthen J, Sokoll K, Green M, Marchesoni A,
Lubrano E, et al. Joint symmetry in early and late rheumatoid
and psoriatic arthritis: comparison with a mathematical model.
5. Dhir V, Aggarwal A. Psoriatic arthritis: a critical review. Clin Rev
Allergy Immunol. 2013;44:1418.
6. McGonagle D. Enthesitis: an autoinflammatory lesion linking
nail and joint involvement in psoriatic disease. J Eur Acad
Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23 Suppl 1:913.
7. Zochling J, Smith EU. Seronegative spondyloarthritis. Best Pract
Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:74756.
8. Joaquim AF, Appenzeller S. Cervical spine involvement in rheu-
matoid arthritis a systematic review. Autoimmun Rev.
2014;13:1195202.
9. Symmons DP, Silman AJ. Aspects of early arthritis. What deter-
mines the evolution of early undifferentiated arthritis and rheu-
matoid arthritis? An update from the Norfolk Arthritis Register.
Arthritis Res Ther. 2006;8:214.
10. Emad Y, Anbar A, Abo-Elyoun I, El-Shaarawy N, Al-Hanafi H,
Darwish H, et al. In palindromic rheumatism, hand joint involve-
ment and positive anti-CCP antibodies predict RA development
after 1 year of follow-up. Clin Rheumatol. 2014;33:7917.
11. Scott DL, Steer S. The course of established rheumatoid arthritis.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:94367.
12. Young A, Koduri G. Extra-articular manifestations and compli-
cations of rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol.
2007;21:90727.
13. Doyle TJ, Lee JS, Dellaripa PF, Lederer JA, Matteson EL,
Fischer A, et al. A roadmap to promote clinical and translational
research in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung dis-
ease. Chest. 2014;145:45463.
14. Sen D, Gonzalez-Mayda M, Brasington Jr RD. Cardiovascular
disease in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am.
2014;40:2749.
15. van der Horst-Bruinsma IE, Nurmohamed MT, Landewe
RB. Comorbidities in patients with spondyloarthritis. Rheum
Dis Clin North Am. 2012;38:52338.
Chapter 4
Clinical and Laboratory
Assessments
Abstract A number of clinical and laboratory methods

have been developed to measure both the disease activity
and severity of inflammatory arthritis patients. The most
frequently used clinical measure to assess arthritis activity
is joint counts (counting the number of swollen and tender
joints, usually in 28 pre-specified joints). These are often
combined with other clinical and laboratory measures in a
composite score called the disease activity score on a 28-joint
count (DAS28). Many measures of assessing inflammatory
arthritis severity exist. In clinical practice the commonest
methods include X-ray and ultrasound imaging, which cap-
ture joint damage and inflammation, and the health assess-
ment questionnaire (HAQ), which provides information on
function and disability. This chapter will provide a compre-
hensive overview of the methods used to assess the activity
and severity of patients with an inflammatory arthritis.
Keywords Disease Outcomes Disease Activity Joint

Counts Radiography Disability Quality of Life

DOI10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_4,
40 Chapter 4. Clinical and Laboratory Assessments
Role of Assessments
The presence of an inflammatory arthritis is relatively easy to
diagnose. The presence of painful, swollen joints is usually
self-evident to both patients and clinicians. However, dividing
patients into specific diagnostic groups can be challenging.
Equally difficult is determining changes in the severity of
arthritis over time. Clinical and laboratory assessments are
vital to making informed decisions about diagnosis classifica-
tion and disease severity.
Assessments used in patients with arthritis include joint
counts, assessments of global health, patient self-assessments
of disability and quality of life, laboratory assessments of
disease activity and autoantibody status and imaging assess-
ments of joint inflammation and joint damage [1]. Often a
number of these various assessments are linked together to
give composite scores of disease activity.
Clinical Assessments
Joint Counts
The characteristic features of inflamed joints comprise swell-

ing and tenderness [2]. Joint swelling is soft tissue swelling
detected along joint margins. When there is a synovial effu-
sion, a joint is inevitably swollen. Effusions are not however
mandatory features of a swollen joint. The most characteristic
feature of a swollen joint is fluctuation, in which fluid can be
displaced by pressure in two planes.
Bony swelling and joint deformities often complicate the
counting of swollen joints. Neither of these indicates the
presence of joint swelling, although they can be present
when joints are swollen. In late disease it is often difficult
to differentiate swollen from deformed inactive joints.
Joint tenderness is indicated by inducing pain in a joint at
rest with pressure. Judging the correct amount of pressure to
Clinical Assessments 41
elicit tenderness depends on both the examiner and the

patient. Generally sufficient pressure should be exerted by
the examiners thumb and index finger to cause whitening of
the examiners nail bed; this equates with a pressure of
approximately 4kg/cm2. In some joints, like the hip, tender-
ness is best identified through movement.
Many joints can be involved in inflammatory arthritis.
Their size and distribution varies substantially, making it dif-
ficult to know how best to summate counts. A number of
different joint counts have been devised. Initially developed
counts assessed all 86 peripheral joints. For many years 66
joints were counted, including the joins in the feet. Currently
joint counts usually assess 28 peripheral joints and exclude
those in the feet.
When 28 joints are counted there are different assess-
ments of swollen joints and tender joints. The joints assessed
are shown in Fig.4.1 and comprise:
10 proximal interphalangeal joints
10 metacarpophalangeal joints
2 wrist joints
2 shoulder joints
2 elbow joints
2 knee joints.
There are two limitations of using 28-joint counts. Firstly,
they imply all joints are identical. However, joints like the
knee are substantially larger than some of the interphalan-
geal joints. Although this can be addressed by correcting the
count for the size of the joint involved, such corrections are
rarely undertaken. Secondly, they ignore joints in the feet,
and these can often be active when the hands are uninvolved.
Nonetheless the 28-joint count is as effective as all other
approaches.
There is no exact number of swollen or tender joints that
mean arthritis is active. However, most experts suggest that 6
swollen and 6 tender joints indicate active disease and none
or one swollen and tender joints represent low disease activ-
ity or remission.
Figure 4.1 Joints

assessed in 28 joint
counts
Examples of tender and swollen joint counts in 1,712

patients with RA attending our clinics are shown in
Fig.4.2. Only a few patients have many active joints. Most
patients have no active joints or only one or two tender
and swollen joints. In addition the number of tender
joints is somewhat greater than the number of swollen
joints.
Global Assessments 43
40 %
35 %
30 %
25 %
Tender joints
20 %
15 %
10 %
5%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
40 %
35 %
30 %
25 %
20 %
15 % Swollen joints
10 %
5%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Figure 4.2 Joint counts in 1,712 patients with rheumatoid arthritis

seen at Kings College Hospital, London
Global Assessments
Global or overall assessments by patients and by clinicians
are often used to assess disease activity. They are convention-
ally recorded using visual analogue scales (VAS). These score
responses on 100 mm scales. Descriptive Likert scores have
also been used; these group responses into distinct categories.
Typically there are five categories which range from strongly
16 %
14 %
12 %
10 %
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 4.3 Patient global assessments in 1,712 patients with rheu-

matoid arthritis seen at Kings College Hospital, London
agree to strongly disagree. High scores by patients and clini-

cians represent active arthritis.
One issue is which clinician should assess patients.
Specialist rheumatologists, specialist nurses and allied health
professionals, and a range of different healthcare profession-
als can all be involved. Their views are not entirely compa-
rable. There is no correct answer and the range of assessments
can be instructive and relevant.
The subjective nature of global assessments limits their
overall value in determining disease activity. Some observers
are optimistic while others are pessimistic. This makes com-
parisons between patients and observers less useful than
changes over time within one individuals observations.
Examples of patient global assessments in 1,712 patients
with RA attending our clinics are shown in Fig. 4.3. There is
a wide range of different levels of response in patients.
Unlike joint counts, which are distributed to the left side,
there is a relatively even distribution of patient global
responses across the whole range of possible scores. This
indicates that patients views of their arthritis are somewhat
different from the objective assessments made by clinical
assessors.
Pain Scores
Pain is usually considered to be a subjective measure

because its assessment is based on data obtained from the
patient, which contrasts with objective data from physical
examination and laboratory tests [3]. However, quantitative
estimations of levels of pain can only be obtained from
patients and there is no alternative source.
There are a variety of ways of assessing pain. All of these
are based on patient self-reported pain. The simplest
approach, which is suitable for both research and routine
practice, is to use a VAS.The standard VAS is a 10-cm scale
bordered on each side. At the 0 mark, it says No pain at all,
and at the 10 mark, Pain as bad as it could be. Pain is then
recorded as the length in millimetres from the zero mark on
the scale.
An alternative is to use categories of pain. These provide
five or more categories. For example none, minimal, moder-
ate, severe and very severe. Such simple categorical scales are
known as Likert scales. Both VAS and Likert scales provide
similar information, but the Likert scales are less often used.
Pain is recorded within composite health status measures
like the SF-36. There are also more complex pain scores that
can be used in arthritis. An example is the McGill Pain
Questionnaire. These are restricted to research studies.
There are several practical problems in using pain VAS
scores. Firstly, they are better at measuring short term
changes in pain. Patients have difficulties retaining any mem-
ory of pain severity over months or years. Secondly, they are
influenced by the way patients complete VAS scores. Some
patients use the full scale while others are more restricted
and use only a small region of the scale. This makes it difficult
to compare one patients pain scores with another; the scores
are better at defining changes in individual patients. Finally,
some patients feel pain with a minimal stimulus compared to
others. This is the concept of pain thresholds. Pain scores are
usually high in patients with low pain thresholds and vice
versa.
Functional Assessments
Function can be measured using objective measures of

observed performance, but this approach has largely been
abandoned in favour of assessments based on self-completed
questionnaires that record patients perception of their
function.
The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) is the most
widely used self-completed questionnaire to assess disability.
It was developed over 30years ago at Stanford. It focuses on
self-reported, patient-oriented outcome measures [4].
HAQ assesses upper and lower limb function related to
the degree of difficulty encountered in performing a number
of specified daily living tasks. It assesses eight different
domains of function. Each of these is scored on a range of
zero to three. These indicate tasks can be undertaken without
any difficulty (zero) or the patient is unable to do them
(three). The highest score in each domain is used to calculate
the overall HAQ score. The domains comprise dressing and
grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip, and
chores or activities
The scores from these eight domains are added to create a
024 point score which is then reduced to a 03 scale by divid-
ing by eight. A HAQ score of zero 0 represents no disability.
A score of 3 represents very severe disability and high depen-
dency. HAQ scores can be measured in a range of different
languages.
The reason for creating a 03 scale is historical. It allowed
HAQ scores to be related to the initial functional score, which
used a scale of I-IV grading for function; I was normal and IV
completed disabled. A HAQ score of zero was linked to a
functional grading of I and a score of 3 to a functional grading
of IV.HAQ superseded the four-point functional score because
it was better able to detect small changes in function.
HAQ is a very useful assessment but it has some limita-
tions. One problem is that there are floor and ceiling effects.
This means that low levels (floor) and high levels (ceiling) of
disability are not recorded accurately by HAQ scores. This is
a problem in applying HAQ to diverse groups of patients. In

patients in the community with low levels of disability HAQ
does not fully capture their problems. It also has limitations
in assessing highly disabled patients from specialist centres
with multiple problems.
Another specific problem in measuring disability is that
HAQ scores are not linear. Although HAQ looks like a sim-
ple number line, it does not perform as one. A change from
zero to one is not the same in terms of its impact on an indi-
vidual patient as a change from 2 to 3.
A third limitation is that the change in HAQ scores that
produce clinically noticeable changes from the perspective of
individual patients is relatively high. Most experts believe a
change in HAQ scores of 0.220.25 is required for patients to
notice a difference in function. This means that the score is act-
ing at the margin of detectable change as most drug treatments
produce this level of change compared to placebo therapy.
A final problem is patients perceptions of disability
change as their arthritis progresses. In early arthritis HAQ
scores can be high whilst in later disease they can be lower.
The initial high HAQ scores in early arthritis improve when
patients receive effective treatments. They then increase
slowly as there is loss of muscle strength and a general
increase in joint damage. But the increases are very slow and
along the way patients change their perception of disability.
In addition, with advancing age all people show some
increase in disability due to the effects of aging.
Many other functional assessments have been used in
arthritis. These include the Arthritis Impact Score and the
Lee functional index. None of these have achieved the wide
usage of HAQ scores.
Generic Health Status Measures
A number of generic health status measures are sometimes

used in arthritis [5]. These include the SF-36, the Nottingham
Health Profile and the EuroQol. The SF-36 and EuroQol are
the dominant measures. Though they are rarely used in clini-

cal practice, they have important research roles. Unlike dis-
ease specific assessments, they can be applied in all diseases
and health states. They can therefore help compare the
impact of arthritis with that of other medical disorders.
SF-36
The SF-36 is the dominant health state measure. It has been

developed over 25years and is available in almost all lan-
guages. It assesses health in 8 domains to give an overall
health profile. Unlike most other measures zero represents
poor health and 100, the upper end of each scale is perfect
health. The SF-36 can be divided into two broad subscales
assessing physical health and mental health. These are the
physical summary scale and the mental summary scale.
The eight subscores assess physical function (2 scales),
pain, vitality (broadly equivalent to fatigue), global health,
social function and mental health (2 subscales).
Like HAQ there are problems with ceiling and floor
affects and the SF-36 is relatively insensitive to measuring
change in arthritis [6]. However, it provides a powerful pic-
ture of the overall impact of arthritis, which extends far
beyond effects on physical function and pain alone. SF-36
scores in arthritis can be compared to scores for normal
populations defined by age and sex and also by country.
EuroQol
The EuroQol, which is also known as EQ-5D, is a simpler

measure that attempts to assess health status on a single line
from zero (equivalent to death) to one (equivalent to com-
plete health). It asks questions across a series of five domains.
The questions are rather simple and the scoring is complex so
that some health states score below zero, which is effectively
worse than dead. The measurement properties of the EuroQol
Laboratory Assessments 49
make it relatively unhelpful in arthritis. However, as it is

often used in health economic studies and its overall impor-
tance in rheumatic diseases should not be underestimated.
Laboratory Assessments
Quantitative laboratory markers like the erythrocyte sedi-
mentation rate (ESR) are useful for monitoring because they
are a consequence of systemic disease. Qualitative markers
like RF indicate prognosis and may have pathogenic
relevance.
Acute Phase Response
Inflammation in the joints as elsewhere involves a systemic

reaction as well as a local reaction. The systemic reaction is
often termed the acute phase response. It can be measured in
many different ways. However, the main tests are the eryth-
rocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and the C-reactive protein
(CRP). Serum amyloid A protein tests are more sensitive but
are rarely used due to technical limitations in the immunoas-
say method.
ESR and CRP levels are closely related to most clinical
measures of disease activity [7]. In early arthritis they are
mainly related to joint swelling. A persistently elevated acute
phase response is associated with high rates of progressive
joint damage. They provide more objective measures of dis-
ease activity than clinical assessments alone. The acute phase
response occurs as a response to many different causes of
inflammation. High levels of the ESR and CRP are therefore
non-specific features in arthritis.
The ESR is the rate at which red blood cells precipitate in
a period of 1h when anti-coagulated blood is placed in an
upright tube. The rate at which blood sediments is measured
and reported in mm per hour (mm/h). The ESR reflects the
balance between pro-sedimentation factors, especially
16 %
14 %
12 %
10 %
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 4.4 ESR levels in 1,712 patients with rheumatoid arthritis

seen at Kings College Hospital, London
fibrinogen, and factors resisting sedimentation, particularly

small charge on the red blood cells. During inflammatory
high levels of fibrinogen increases the rate of sedimentation.
As the ESR is affected by many different proteins it is a very
non-specific test. It is, however, often measured when evalu-
ating the activity of inflammatory arthritis patients. Examples
of ESR levels in 1,712 patients with RA attending our clinics
are shown in Fig.4.4. Over half the patients have raised ESR
levels; some are very elevated at over 90mm/h.
CRP is a single plasma protein. It was initially identified as
a substance in the serum of patients with acute inflammation
that reacted with the C polysaccharide of pneumococcus. This
gave rise to its name. However, it is increased in all types of
inflammation.
Although an elevated acute phase response is an excellent
marker for disease activity, at presentation in over one third
of patients with inflammatory arthritis both the ESR and
CRP are normal. This is particularly true in AS patients with
purely spinal involvement. In those patients in whom it is
elevated, the acute phase response provides an excellent
flag for the catabolic processes of arthritis. The aim of
treatment is to return the elevated acute phase proteins
towards normal.
Laboratory Assessments 51
Multi-biomarker Disease Activity (MBDA) Tests
An alternative to using single assays is the use of panels of

different laboratory markers. An example of this is the Multi-
Biomarker Disease Activity (MBDA) test [8]. This approach
uses multiple biomarkers to assess disease activity levels.
Starting with a large panel of possible protein biomarkers, the
developers of this approach ended up with a panel of 12 bio-
markers. They measure different biological pathways involved
in RA pathogenesis. They can be broadly grouped into acute-
phase response measures, hormones, growth factors, adhesion
molecules, skeletal-related proteins, metallo-proteinases and
cytokine related proteins.
An MBDA score is derived using an algorithm based on
results in the 12 different biomarker levels. It divides patients
into different levels of activity from active to remission. It is
currently a commercially available assay, which is most
widely used in North America. The extent to which it will be
generally taken up is at present uncertain.
Rheumatoid Factor
These are antibodies directed against the Fc portion of
immunoglobulin G (IgG). All classes of immunoglobulin can
form RF. RF and IgG combine together as immune com-
plexes. The immune disturbance of RA is influenced by these
immune complexes.
Most patients with RA have RF in their synovial fluid and
blood [9]. The exact frequency varies between centres.
Overall 6080 % of RA patients possess significantly ele-
vated levels of RF. They are termed seropositive while
those who are persistently RF-negative are termed sero-
negative patients. Measuring RF is an essential part of diag-
nosing RA, and RF tests are incorporated in all classification
criteria for the disease.
The first RF tests used agglutination methods.This includes
the classical Rose-Waaler tests based on sheep red cells and
latex tests. These mainly detect IgM RF.
Newer solid phase techniques, particularly enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assays (ELISA) can measure IgG and IgA
RF isotypes. IgA RF, which is elevated in over half of RA
patients, is potentially a good maker of disease severity and
potential joint damage. However, research in this area has
given conflicting results. Consequently measuring RF iso-
types has not become part of routine practice.
RF is not specific for RA. It can be present in a wide vari-
ety of conditions in which there is disturbed immunity.
Examples include connective tissue diseases, chronic inflam-
matory condition such as tuberculosis and are often seen in
otherwise healthy people. Its frequency rises with age.
RF, especially in high titre in early disease, identifies
patients with a poor prognosis. It is a good overall indicator
of disease severity and is closely related to the development
of erosive disease and extra-articular features such as
nodules.
Antibodies toCitrullinated Protein Antigens
These antibodies have been measured in various forms since

the 1960s. They were first described as antibodies to keratin
and similar proteins in a range of cells, including buccal
musosal cells and keratinised oesophageal cells in animal sec-
tions. They were variously termed anti-perinuclear factor,
anti-keratin antibodies, and anti-filaggrin antibodies.
For over a decade all these antibodies have been known to
target citrullinated proteins. Citrulline is a non-standard
amino acid. It is formed from arginine by enzymic degrada-
tion. Citrullination occurs as part of the inflammatory reac-
tion. A number of ELISA assays can detect antibodies to
citrullinated proteins. The current second generation assays
used cyclic epitopes carefully selected from libraries of citrul-
linated peptides to provide the most sensitive assays. The
antibodies are variously known as antibodies to citrullinated
protein antigens, which is shortened to ACPA, and Cyclic
Citrullinated Peptide Antibodies, which is shortened to anti-
CCP.ACPA has become the preferred term [10].
Imaging 53
ACPAs are equally sensitive but more specific for RA

than RF assays. Their sensitivity rates have been estimated at
60 %, which is similar to RF. However specificity rates are
estimated at 96 %, compared to 86 % with RF.
There are several related autoantibodies, such as antibod-
ies to vimentin. At present these are not used in routine prac-
tice. It is possible the range of autoantibodies tested will
increase with time.
Both ACPA and RF may be present before the clinical
onset of RA. In one study about half of 79 patients with RA
had positive serology 5years before the onset of their dis-
ease [11]. The presence of these antibodies can predict the
development of RA in patients with an early undifferenti-
ated arthritis. Additionally they predict more severe dis-
ease, with antibody-positive RA having more joint
damage and fewer remissions compared with antibody-
negative RA.
Imaging
The commonly used imaging approaches are plain X-rays,
ultrasound and MRI [12]. Other methods that are used less
often include computerised tomography (CT), which has lim-
ited value in peripheral joints, and radio-isotope scans, which
are now rarely used to diagnose or assess arthritis.
X-Rays inRheumatoid Arthritis
X-rays in RA show many changes. These include soft tissue

swelling, periarticular osteoporosis, loss of joint space, juxta-
articular bony erosions, subchondral cysts, subluxation and
ankylosis. Most changes are not specific and expert observers
often disagree about their presence and extent. Erosions are
the most diagnostic feature. Examples of erosions at the
metacarpophalangeal and metatarsophalangeal joints in RA
patients are shown in Fig.4.5; these sites are classical areas
for erosive damage in RA.
Figure 4.5 Erosive X-ray changes in the hands and feet in rheuma-
toid arthritis patients seen at Kings College Hospital, London
The progression of X-ray changes provides an objective

measure that is useful for both following the course of RA and
assessing the long-term effects of treatment. Once the radio-
logical cascade of damage starts, rapid progression is seen in
the early years. In the later phases the rate of progressive dam-
age tapers. Rapid X-ray progression indicates the need for
more aggressive treatment especially at an early stage where it
may be possible to avoid or abort subsequent major joint dam-
age. The progression and increase of radiographic scores cor-
relates with disease duration. The curve of radiographic
progression ranges from linear in early stages, through an
S-shape to flattening of the rate of progression at later stages.
There are many methods to quantify the amount and pro-
gression of x-ray damage. There are two widely used
approaches. The Sharp method scores most of joints in the
hand and wrist on a graded scale for erosions and narrowing.
The Larsen method scores radiological appearances com-
pared to a set of reference X-rays.
X-rays have several limitations as outcome measures and
their place as one of the gold standards of RA outcome has
been challenged. One problem is the frequency of floor and ceil-
ing effects of the scoring system used (i.e. even though the high-
est score has been reached further deterioration can occur).
Imaging 55
A second problem is that it can be difficult to determine if ero-

sions have increased in size or if the position of the joint is
slightly different from a previous radiograph. Finally, they may
not directly reflect a patients functional disability.
Ultrasound inRheumatoid Arthritis
High-resolution ultrasound is better than clinical examina-

tion and conventional X-rays in diagnosing and assessing
joint and bursal effusions and synovitis. It is the imaging
modality of choice for tendon pathologies. It is also more
sensitive at detecting erosions.
The main changes seen on ultrasound comprise:
Effusions
Synovial swelling indicating synovitis
Tendonitis and tendon rupture
Erosions
Doppler ultrasound, particularly power Doppler or colour
Doppler imaging, allows an assessment of synovial vascular-
ity. It can distinguish inflamed and non-vascular synovial
swelling. The advantages of ultrasound are that it is relatively
inexpensive, non-invasive and allows many joints to be
assessed at any one time. It can be done in real time within
the clinic and yields instant information. Its main disadvantage
is its dependency on the skills of the operator and potential
problems with reproducibility.
Ultrasound uses two approaches to evaluate joints. These
are greyscale and power Doppler. Greyscale ultrasonography
shows structures of the joints and surrounding tissues to be
seen. Fluid and solid structures can be differentiated in their
echotexture. Solid structures like are hyperechoic. Fluid
appears anechoic. Doppler ultrasonography allows the blood
flow to be visualized by the change in frequency of sound
waves reflected by moving objects(the Doppler shift). It can
slow velocity flow signals which suggest inflammation within
joints and tendons. An example of these ultrasound
approaches in an RA patient is given in Fig. 4.6. Marked
a b
Figure 4.6 Ultrasound of a metacarpophalangeal joint demonstrat-

ing active synovitis in a rheumatoid arthritis patient seen at Kings
College Hospital, London. Panel (a) synovial hypertrophy on grey
scale; Panel (b) synovial inflammation on power Doppler
power Doppler signal is seen indicating active synovitis at the

metacarpophalangeal joint.
agnetic Resonance Imaging inRheumatoid

M
Arthritis
MRI gives excellent images in arthritis and can show soft-
tissue changes, cartilage changes, bony erosions and inflam-
matory change in the synovium. Gadolinium-based
intravenous contrast agents are useful for defining the extent
and severity of synovitis. MRI is the most sensitive approach
for identifying destructive changes in early arthritis and for
defining the benefits of early treatments. It remains more of
a research investigation at present.
Imaging inPsoriatic Arthritis

Although the features are similar to RA, there is an asym-
metric distribution, fewer joints are involved progression is
less marked and bone proliferation is common. Specific
changes include bony proliferation including periarticular
and shaft periostitis, osteolysis with a pencil in cup defor-
mity and acro-osteolysis and spur formation [13].
Combined Measures 57
The main differences to RA include:

Asymmetrical erosions in the wrists and metacarpopha-
langeal joints
Erosions of distal interphalangeal joints
Erosive changes irregular due to periosteal bone
formation
Erosions progress to pencil in cup deformity with
marked osteolysis
I maging inAnkylosing Spondylitis andReactive

Arthritis
The main changes are in the spine and sacroiliac joints
(which is a spinal problem rather than a form of inflamma-
tory arthritis). Periarticular osteoporosis, loss of joint space
and bone erosion are all seen in the peripheral joints [14].
Proliferation about sites of erosion is more characteristic of
ankylosing spondylitis. In advanced disease periosteal reac-
tion and proliferation at sites of tendon insertion are com-
monplace. A good example is the presence of exuberant
plantar spurs.
Combined Measures
Core Data Set inRheumatoid Arthritis
In RA no single measure is universally appropriate. The ben-

efits of treatment are usually derived from a reduction in
symptoms or slowing down the progression of the disease
rather than achieving a cure. Until recently the outcome mea-
sures in both clinical trials and routine practice were chosen
more by chance than design and there was no agreement on
which, if any, measure was best. In the last few years a limited
core set of preferred outcome measures has been defined
by international consensus. These should be included in every
clinical trial in RA and are suitable for routine practice. They

comprise as follows:
Number of swollen joints
Number of tender joints
Pain assessed by the patient
Patients global assessments of disease activity
Assessors global assessments of disease activity
Laboratory evaluation (ESR, CRP, or equivalent)
Self-administered functional assessment (e.g. Health
Assessment Questionnaire)
X-ray assessment for joint damage
omposite Disease Activity Indices: Disease

C
Activity Score
There are many composite indices to assess RA [15]. The first
to be widely used was the disease activity score (DAS). It was
developed from a large prospective study in the Netherlands,
which related the decision of rheumatologists to start or stop
treatment to high and low levels of disease activity. By model-
ing clinical decisions a composite index was developed, which
was termed DAS.
The original DAS used four measures: the Ritchie
articular index, the swollen Joint Count based on 44 joints,
the ESR and patients general health assessment on a
visual analogue scale. Subsequently, DAS was changed to
assess fewer joints, using the 28 joint counts. The modified
measure was termed the DAS28. It combines tender joint
counts, swollen joint counts, the ESR and patients global
scores.
DAS28 is calculated using a complex formula:
0.56 * SqrtTJC 28 + 0.28 * sqrtSJC 28 + 0.70 *

InESR + 0.014 * General Health

Combined Measures 59
There have been further modifications of DAS including the

development of a measure using CRP in place of ESR. All
scores measure the same thing, though the numbers are
slightly different.
DAS28 has become the leading European index. It is sim-
ple to use and is equally valid as more comprehensive articu-
lar indices, which can be time consuming to use in routine
practice. DAS28 scores in rheumatoid arthritis fall into four
categories, ranging from remission to high disease activity.
These categories of DAS28 scores are as follows:
Under 2.6: Remission
2.63.2: Low Disease Activity
3.35.0: Moderate Disease Activity
5.1 or more: High Disease Activity
Simplified Indices
As DAS28 requires complex calculations two simple indices

have been developed. They are un-weighted and un-
transformed. As a result they are easy to calculate. Most clini-
cians can calculate them in the clinic.
The first of these is the simplified disease activity index
(SDAI). This uses five variables, including the CRP level. The
second is the clinical disease activity index (CDAI), which
has no laboratory variables. These simplified indices are
closely related to DAS28. They have different numeric cut-off
points. They are less often used in routine clinical practice.
The components of these simplified indices are as
follows:
SDAI: number of swollen joints (our of 28)+number of
tender joints (our of 28)+patients global assessment (on
10cm visual analogue scale)+physicians global assess-
ment (on 10 cm visual analogue scale) + CRP (mg/dL)
CDAI=number of swollen joints (our of 28)+number of
tender joints (our of 28)+patients global assessment
(on 10cm visual analogue scale)+physicians global
assessment (on 10cm visual analogue scale)
merican College ofRheumatology (ACR)

A
Response Criteria
These were developed in 1995 to simply the assessment of
response in clinical trials. They use components of the core
data set and involve improvements in both swollen and ten-
der joint counts and three out of: patient global assessment,
physician global assessment, pain, ESR and a functional mea-
sure such as HAQ.Improvements can be at 20, 50 or 70%
levels (termed ACR-20 to ACR-70 responses). Although
ACR response criteria are widely used in trials, they are not
relevant in clinical practice.
Other Forms ofArthritis
Although DAS28 and ACR response criteria can be used in

other forms of arthritis, they are less useful when only a few
joints are involved.
In PsA there are Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria
(PsARC) [16]. These comprise the following:
patient global self-assessment
physician global assessment
tender joint score
swollen joint score
It does not include an assessment of psoriasis. A response
is defined as an improvement in at least two of the four mea-
sures, one of which has to be the joint tenderness or swelling
score, with no worsening in any of the four measures.
In AS there are a number of different measures to assess
its overall severity. The most widely accepted is the Bath
Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI).
This consists of 10cm visual analogue scales that evaluate six
questions related to the major symptoms of the disorder.
These comprise:
Fatigue
Spinal pain
Outcomes 61
Joint pain and swelling

Areas of localized tenderness (enthesitis or inflammation
of tendons and ligaments)
Morning stiffness duration
Morning stiffness severity
To give each symptom equal weighting, the average of the
two scores relating to morning stiffness is taken. The resulting
050 score is divided by 5 to give a final zero to ten BASDAI
score. Scores of 4 or greater suggest suboptimal control of
disease and the need for additional treatment.
Outcomes
The outcome of treated RA includes assessments of joint

damage, disability, mortality and the costs of the disease.
Each of these types of outcome has different implications for
patients, healthcare providers and clinicians treating the dis-
ease. They are inter-related at a global level in that on
average patients who show marked radiological damage also
have the most disability, higher mortality and greater costs.
However, there are marked individual variations and many
patients have considerable radiological damage, but little dis-
ability and vice versa some cases have considerable disability
and little damage [17].
In early RA the key change is the development of juxta-
articular erosions. In the first few years of RA, between 50
and 75% of patients will develop one or more erosions in
their hands and wrists. Those patients who have no erosions
by 3years are unlikely to develop them later in the disease.
In late disease the main problem is end-stage joint damage. In
early disease less than 5% of joints are totally damaged.
After 20 years of RA about 20 % of joints are completely
damaged, and many of these will need surgical replacement.
During the course of RA, between 5 and 20 years of dis-
ease there is a steady progression of joint damage.Longitudinal
studies show that in early disease on average patients have

less than 20% of maximal possible damage. By 20years this
has increased to about 50% of maximum possible damage,
an increase of 13% per year. Damage to large joints is a
major cause of disability in later disease.
Average HAQ scores in groups of patients increase with
disease duration. After 57 years of RA average HAQ score
are about 0.8 (27% maximum possible disability). These
increase in a linear manner by 13% per year so that by
1820years they are in the region of 1.11 (37% maximum
possible disability). There is a different pattern of HAQ
scores in the first 5years of rheumatoid arthritis in which
there is a J-shaped curve. HAQ scores fall initially, when
patients with active disease receive effective treatment. They
then increase in a stepwise manner.
There are more deaths in RA patients from all causes than
in people of similar age and sex without arthritis. Standardised
mortality ratios (SMR), which allow comparisons across dif-
ferent populations, show RA patients have SMRs for all
cause of death between 1.1 and 3.0 relative to the general
population. In keeping with the general causes of death in
Europe and North America, heart disease is the commonest
cause of death in RA patients. The way in which RA patients
are chosen for mortality studies influences the results.
Hospital based RA patients have higher SMRs than commu-
nity cases; suggesting disease severity is an important indica-
tor of premature death.
Cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infarctions
and strokes cause 4050% of mortality in the general popu-
lation and in patients with RA. Both of these show an
increase in RA compared to normal controls. Cardiac deaths
are most likely in patients who are seropositive for rheuma-
toid factor. Other factors may also be involved, including
steroid treatment, diabetes mellitus and hypertension.
Overall cancer deaths are not increased in rheumatoid
arthritis. However, there is one exception. RA patients have
a markedly, and possibly time-limited, increased risk for
malignant lymphomas. There is little to suggest these excess
References 63
results from inherited or environmental risk factors in malig-

nant lymphomas. Instead, lymphomas complicating RA
appear to be a direct consequence of the inflammation or its
treatment. At the same time the number of RA patients who
develop lymphomas is small, as the disease is relatively
uncommon.
Psoriatic Arthritis
Patients with PsA have reduced quality of life and limited

function compared with patients with psoriasis alone or
healthy controls [18]. The overall impact of the disease is
similar to that of RA. The severity of PsA is shown by the
gradual increase in joint damage that occurs over its course
and the increased mortality. The excess of death is in the
region of 60 % with a SMR of about 1.6. The causes of death
are similar to those in the general population, with cardiovas-
cular causes being the commonest. The risk for premature
death is increased with active and severe disease, the pres-
ence of erosive disease, and a high ESR when first seen.
Although there is less information about the long-term out-

comes of AS, they appear equally severe to those in
RA. Patients have reduced function, impaired quality of life
and some increase in mortality. The data for AS represents
the impact of less intensive treatments and it may be improv-
ing with more active management using biologics.
References
1. Anderson J, Caplan L, Yazdany J, Robbins ML, Neogi T,
Michaud K, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures:
American College of Rheumatology recommendations for use
in clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64:6407.
2. Scott IC, Scott DL. Joint counts in inflammatory arthritis. Clin

Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32:S-7-12.
3. Englbrecht M, Tarner IH, van der Heijde DM, Manger B,
Bombardier C, Muller-Ladner U. Measuring pain and efficacy of
pain treatment in inflammatory arthritis: a systematic literature
review. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2012;90:310.
4. Bruce B,Fries JF.The Stanford HealthAssessment Questionnaire:
dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life
Outcomes. 2003;1:20.
5. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review
of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics.
2000;17:1335.
6. Matcham F, Scott IC, Rayner L, Hotopf M, Kingsley GH, Norton
S, etal. The impact of rheumatoid arthritis on quality-of-life
assessed using the SF-36: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014;44:12330.
7. Pincus T, Sokka T. Laboratory tests to assess patients with rheu-
matoid arthritis: advantages and limitations. Rheum Dis Clin
North Am. 2009;35:7314.
8. Centola M, Cavet G, Shen Y, Ramanujan S, Knowlton N, Swan
KA, etal. Development of a multi-biomarker disease activity
test for rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60635.
9. Shmerling RH, Delbanco TL. The rheumatoid factor: an analysis
of clinical utility. Am J Med. 1991;91:52834.
10. Suwannalai P, Trouw LA, Toes RE, Huizinga TW. Anti-
citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) in early rheumatoid
arthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 2012;22:1520.
11. Nielen MMJ, van Schaardenburg D, Reesink HW, van de Stadt
RJ, van der Horst-Bruinsma IE, de Koning MHMT, et al. Specific
autoantibodies precede the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: a
study of serial measurements in blood donors. Arthritis Rheum.
2004;50:3806.
12. McQueen FM.Imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract
Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013;27:499522.
13. Bakewell CJ, Olivieri I, Aydin SZ, Dejaco C, Ikeda K, Gutierrez
M, etal. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the evalu-
ation of psoriatic dactylitis: status and perspectives. J Rheumatol.
2013;40:19517.
14. Ostergaard M, Poggenborg RP, Axelsen MB, Pedersen
SJ. Magnetic resonance imaging in spondyloarthritishow to
quantify findings and measure response. Best Pract Res Clin
Rheumatol. 2010;24:63757.
References 65
15. Anderson JK, Zimmerman L, Caplan L, Michaud K. Measures of

rheumatoid arthritis disease activity: Patient (PtGA) and
Provider (PrGA) Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Disease
Activity Score (DAS) and Disease Activity Score with 28-Joint
Counts (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI),
Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Activity Score
(PAS) and Patient Activity Score-II (PASII), Routine Assessment
of Patient Index Data (RAPID), Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease
Activity Index (RADAI) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease
Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), Chronic Arthritis Systemic Index
(CASI), Patient-Based Disease Activity Score With ESR
(PDAS1) and Patient-Based Disease Activity Score without ESR
(PDAS2), and Mean Overall Index for Rheumatoid Arthritis
(MOI-RA). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S1436.
16. Mease PJ. Measures of psoriatic arthritis: Tender and Swollen
Joint Assessment, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI),
Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), Modified Nail Psoriasis
Severity Index (mNAPSI), Mander/Newcastle Enthesitis Index
(MEI), Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI), Spondyloarthritis
Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC), Maastricht
Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES), Leeds
Dactylitis Index (LDI), Patient Global for Psoriatic Arthritis,
Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Psoriatic Arthritis
Quality of Life (PsAQOL), Functional Assessment of Chronic
Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Psoriatic Arthritis Response
Criteria (PsARC), Psoriatic Arthritis Joint Activity Index
(PsAJAI), Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), and
Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI). Arthritis
Care Res. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S6485.
17. Kingsley G, Scott IC, Scott DL. Quality of life and the outcome
of established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin
Rheumatol. 2011;25:585606.
18. Gladman DD, Antoni C, Mease P, Clegg DO, Nash P.Psoriatic
arthritis: epidemiology, clinical features, course, and outcome.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64 Suppl 2:ii147.
Chapter 5
Symptomatic Drug Treatment
Abstract As pain is the main symptom that inflammatory

arthritis patients report, analgesics are a major focus of their
management. Simple analgesics such as paracetamol and
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) are com-
monly used. Both have risks when used long-term. A particu-
lar concern with long-term NSAID use is an increased risk of
cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events such as myocardial
infarction and gastro-oesophageal bleeding. This chapter will
provide a broad overview of symptomatic drug treatments
in inflammatory arthritis patients. It will focus on the differ-
ent classes of available treatments, their relative merits and
disadvantages, alongside their use in the different forms of
inflammatory arthritis.
Keywords Analgesics Paracetamol NSAIDs Side-effects
Introduction
Pain is the dominant symptom in arthritis. It is present from
the earliest stages of synovitis and persists throughout the
course of the disease. In early inflammatory arthritis pain is
predominantly related to the activity of the synovitis. In late
disease it is influenced by the development of joint damage
and failure.

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_5,
68 Chapter 5. Symptomatic Drug Treatment
Pain in arthritis overlaps with chronic pain generally,

which is a major medical problem. Nearly half the adult
population report chronic pain. It is particularly prevalent in
the elderly and is also associated with poverty, being retired
and being unable to work. Arthritis is the commonest cause
of pain in the community.
The impact of poorly controlled pain cannot be overesti-
mated in inflammatory arthritis. Almost all patients with
inflammatory arthritis report pain is a major health problem.
Pain has close links with psychological symptoms including
depression and anxiety. It is also closely related to disability
and impaired health status.
There are several ways to control pain. The first and most
important is to give symptomatic drug treatment with analge-
sics or anti-inflammatory drugs. The second is to control the
underlying inflammatory disease process. The third is to
replace damaged joints, which is only relevant in late disease.
Finally non-specific measures such as exercise therapy or
treating co-existent depression also reduce pain, and the ben-
efits of anti-depressants may extend beyond merely treating
depression into a direct effect on pain itself.
Other important symptoms in arthritis stem from joint
inflammation. Pain is accompanied by joint tenderness, swell-
ing and stiffness, together with morning stiffness. Symptomatic
treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs improves stiffness
and tenderness and to some extent will reduce joint swelling.
The effect of symptomatic treatment on joint tenderness and
swelling is less than that of disease modifying treatments.
Simple Analgesics
Simple analgesics should be used in all patients with inflam-
matory arthritis as an adjunct to non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and DMARD therapy. The
available drugs include paracetamol, co-proxamol and trama-
dol (Table 5.1). Although there is some evidence from clinical
trials that analgesics reduce pain in RA, the amount of data
Simple Analgesics 69
Table 5.1 Commonly used analgesics

Simple Compound
Paracetamol Co-codamol (paracetamol/codeine)
Codeine Co-dydramol (paracetamol/
dihydrocodeine)
Dihydrocodeine
Tramadol
Buprenorphine
is very limited. Most trials of these drugs were carried out

more than 20 years ago and by current standards did not
study enough patients and did not last long enough. However,
almost all rheumatologists recommend using them. At the
same time, only a very small proportion of patients with RA
and other inflammatory arthropathies will have their disease
controlled by analgesics alone.
Paracetamol
Paracetamol is the dominant analgesic. It is effective with a

single dose of 1,000 mg paracetamol providing more than
50 % pain relief over 46 h in moderate or severe pain com-
pared with placebo. Its analgesic effects are comparable to
those of conventional NSAIDS, there are virtually no groups
of people who should not take it, interactions with other
treatments are not a problem, at the recommended dosage
there are virtually no side-effects, it is well tolerated by
patients with peptic ulcers.
Interestingly despite being used for many years the mech-
anism of action of paracetamol is not well understood. It may
be centrally active, producing analgesia by elevation of the
pain threshold by inhibiting prostaglandin synthetase in the
hypothalamus. At therapeutic dosages it does not inhibit
prostaglandin synthetase in peripheral tissues, and conse-
quently has no anti-inflammatory activity.
Although paracetamol has been used to control symptoms

in inflammatory arthritis for many years, the evidence sup-
porting its efficacy remains weak [1]. The weakness of this
evidence is, however, partly related to the historic nature of
the drug. The evidence base for many long-standing drugs is
weak because the need for strong evidence when they were
introduced was minimal.
One limitation with paracetamol is that it is relatively inef-
fective, patients need to take 68 tablets daily to achieve any
analgesic benefit, and most patients prefer to take NSAIDs.
Patients perspectives highlight the limitations of paracetamol.
Only a minority of patients find it is effective and the major-
ity prefer NSAIDs for symptom control.
Historically the safety of paracetamol has been empha-
sised. However, there are concerns about its potential toxicity
with therapeutic doses. These include:
liver injury, especially in patients with underlying liver
disease, malnutrition and chronic alcohol use
renal disease, with evidence of reduced renal function in
patients who have taken paracetamol
hypertension, which has been identified as a possible risk
in large observational studies.
Opioids
These are widely used to control pain. In arthritis weak opi-

oids (codeine, dextropropoxyphene and tramadol) are often
used, whist strong ones (morphine and its derivates) are
avoided. Although these drugs are effective in chronic non-
cancer pain, many patients stop taking them due to side
effects. These reactions include nausea, constipation and
drowsiness.
The reasons that strong opiates like as morphine are virtu-
ally never used in treating inflammatory arthritis are complex.
It is usually thought that their addictive nature makes their
over value more disadvantageous than beneficial. However,
this view is based on custom and practice rather than any
Simple Analgesics 71
rigorous scientific testing. A small minority of patients do

benefit from them. There is reasonable evidence opioids are
effective in improving symptoms in inflammatory arthritis,
particularly patient-reported pain levels, although adverse
events such as nausea are not uncommon (Fig. 5.1) [2].
Tramadol
Tramadol is effective in relieving moderate to moderately

severe pain. It is a weak synthetic opioid that also has
serotonin-releasing and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitory
properties. It is used to treat moderate to severe pain in
arthritis. Tramadol causes less constipation than conventional
opiates. Dependence is not a clinically relevant problem. To
be fully effective tramadol needs to be given at a dose of
50100 mg every 46 h. A slow release formulation can be
useful if night pain is a particular problem. Its most frequent
adverse effects include headache, dizziness and somnolence.
700
600
Controls
Per 1,000 patients
500
Opioids
400
300
200
100
0
Good patient- Withdrew for lack Withdrew for
assessed of effect adverse effect
improvement
Figure 5.1 Efficacy and toxicity of opioids in rheumatoid arthritis

(From systematic review by Whittle et al., figure adapted using data
reported by Whittle et al. [2])
The sleepiness caused by tramadol often precludes its use in

patients who need to be mentally alert in the day. Tramadol is
closely regulated and in the United Kingdom it is now classi-
fied as a schedule three controlled drug.
Buprenorphine
Buprenorphine is now available as a transdermal preparation

for treating the pain of arthritis. It is an opioid analgesic. The
patches have reservoirs of buprenorphine which is slowly
absorbed into the blood. Patches need to be changed weekly to
deliver continuous pain relief. The use of transdermal treatment
reduces some of the adverse effects of opiates such as constipa-
tion and nausea. It also provides more continuous efficacy.
Codeine and Dihydrocodeine
These weak opioids have centrally mediated effects. They are

effective after 2030 min and last for about 4 h. Dihydrocodeine
has about twice the potency of codeine. They show a ceiling
effect for analgesia and higher doses give progressively more
adverse effects, particularly nausea and vomiting. These
adverse effects outweigh any additional analgesic effect.
Compound Analgesics
Patients can combine paracetamol with a weak opiate as

single agents or in combination tablets. Co-proxamol, which
is the combination of paracetamol with dextropropoxyphene
(an agent that is rarely used alone), was historically popular
with clinicians. There was no obvious reason for this and the
drug has been withdrawn from general use. Currently avail-
able combinations comprise paracetamol with codeine (co-
codamol) or dihydrocodeine (co-dydramol). These compound
drugs have the same effects and adverse reactions as
individual drugs.
Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) 73
Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs

(NSAIDs)
NSAIDs are a diverse group of drugs with a name that was
introduced to distinguish them from glucocorticoids and the
non-narcotic analgesics. Overall NSAIDs are one of the
most frequently used group of drugs. Their benefits must be
set against significant risks from gastrointestinal and renal
toxicity, which cause a substantial number of deaths each
year.
Mechanism of Action and Cox I/Cox II Effects
Inflammation involves many locally produced chemical

mediators. These include prostaglandins, leukotrienes,
complement-derived products, and products of activated leu-
kocytes, platelets and mast cells.
The central and most important effect of NSAIDs is inhib-
iting cyclo-oxygenase (COX). COX has been presumed to be
the major target of NSAIDs for many years influencing their
analgesic and anti-inflammatory capacities. It was originally
purified in the 1970s. By 1990 it was realised the enzyme had
two isoforms, termed Cox I and Cox II [3]. The first isoform
COX- 1 is responsible for the production of housekeep-
ing prostaglandins critical for normal renal function, gastric
mucosal integrity and vascular haemostasis. By contrast
COX-2 is an inducible enzyme. It is upregulated in macro-
phages, monocytes and other inflammatory cells by various
stimuli including interleukin-1 and other cytokines. NSAIDs
can be classified according to their relative effects on Cox I
and Cox II. The risk of GI adverse effects seems to be
reduced with increasing Cox II selectivity. However, other
factors are involved, as some NSAIDs that are relatively Cox
II selective are known to be associated with a higher
incidence of GI adverse events.
Several types of assays assess the Cox-II selectivity. In vitro
human whole blood assay is an accepted and reproducible
standard. However it may not truly reflect the Cox inhibition

in target tissues like the gastric mucosa. Recent assays use
human target cells such as gastric mucosal cells and synovio-
cytes. There are wide variations in ratios reported by using
different assay techniques. Results from in vitro testing are no
more than a general guide to the relative in vivo selectivity of
different drugs.
NSAIDs have many other actions including uncoupling
oxidative phosphorylation, inhibiting lysosomal enzyme
release, inhibiting complement activation, antagonising the
generation of activity of kinins, and inhibiting free radicals.
None of these mechanisms can completely explain the
actions of NSAIDs
Classification of NSAIDs
NSAIDs differ from each other and can therefore be classi-

fied not only by their relative COX-1/COX-2 inhibition but
also by their chemical class and their plasma half-life. They
are mainly organic acids with low pKa values. These low pKa
values may facilitate penetration of inflamed tissue, where
pHs are often low. The more acidic drugs usually have shorter
half-lives. There is marked individual variation in response to
NSAIDs, though the causes of such variations are not known.
Unfortunately this variability makes it difficult to predict
how a patient will respond to NSAID treatment. NSAIDs are
often produced in slow-release or sustained-release prepara-
tions. These can allow once-daily dosing, and may reduce
gastrointestinal side effects.
All NSAIDs exhibit anti-inflammatory properties and are
often the first treatment given to patients with inflammatory
arthritis. Their efficacy is readily shown in comparison to pla-
cebo within 2 weeks in patients with active RA. Virtually all
of the NSAIDs relieve pain when used in doses substantially
lower than those required to demonstrate suppression of
inflammation. The analgesic action of NSAIDs is generally
considered to be peripheral, as opposed to the central effect
of narcotics. There is some evidence of a possible blockade of

pain transmission or perception of painful stimuli in the cen-
tral nervous system and spinal cord by selective COX-2
inhibitors.
Conventional NSAIDs
Although many NSAIDs have been developed, in clinical

practice most specialists use only a few drugs (Table 5.2). The
earliest NSAIDs have either been withdrawn, in the case of
phenylbutazone, or are only used infrequently, as in the case
of indomethacin. This includes drugs that can be given
between once and three times daily. Giving NSAIDs fre-
quently provides greater flexibility in getting the best dose
for an individual patient. At the same time it also means tak-
ing many more tablets at relatively frequent intervals. Giving
an NSAID once daily is often more convenient, but this is
offset by greater relative toxicity. The risks of toxicity with
conventional NSAIDs can be minimised by giving the lowest
dose compatible with symptom relief, and by reducing or
stopping treatment when patients have achieved a good
response to disease modifying drugs.
In choosing between different conventional NSAIDs, it is
important to realise that systematic reviews have found no
major differences in efficacy between the currently available
NSAIDs over a range of doses. However, they have found
differences in adverse reactions. Many of the early conven-
tional NSAIDs have been withdrawn due to concerns about
adverse events, or they are rarely used because of their high
relative toxicity.
Cox-2 Drugs (COXIBs)
The discovery of the two COX isoenzymes was a significant

advance. COX-2 was considered to provide anti-inflammatory
action and pain relief, as seen with conventional NSAIDs, but
Table 5.2 Commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Suggested
Drug dose Advantages Limitations
Conventional NSAIDs
Diclofenac 75 mg Rapid onset Concerns about
slow of action and liver toxicity
release bd relatively good
efficacy
Ibuprofen 600 mg tds Well known Requires frequent
and widely used dosing
with short half-
life giving great
flexibility of use
Naproxen 500 mg bd Effective when Standard NSAID
used twice daily with no major
drawbacks though
no evidence it has
more long-term
safety
COXIBs
Celecoxib 200 mg bd Reduced gastric Some unresolved
toxicity concerns about
cardiac adverse
events
Etoricoxib 90 mg Reduced gastric Fluid retention

daily toxicity and makes it
once daily unsuitable for
dosing patients with
cardiac failure
without the toxicity associated with COX-1 inhibition. This

concept led to the development of a new class of drugs that
specifically inhibit COX-2 while sparing COX-1. Although a
number of COXIBs have been developed only two are used
to any great extent. These are celecoxib and etoricoxib. Other
COXIBs were all withdrawn due to potential adverse reac-
tion risks.
There is a substantial body of evidence from large trials,

some of which are of long duration that show Coxibs like
celecoxib are effective in RA. They improve both tender joint
counts and pain scores in RA patients (Fig. 5.2) [4]. These
drugs are more effective than placebo and equally effective
as maximum daily doses of standard NSAIDs (such as diclof-
enac and naproxen).
Baseline 6 Months
25
Tender joint count
20
15
10
0
Celecoxib Diclofenac
Baseline 6 Months
60
50
Pain scores
40
30
20
10
0
Celecoxib Diclofenac
Figure 5.2 Efficacy of NSAIDs in rheumatoid arthritis: a double-

blind randomised comparison of celecoxib versus diclofenac (Figure
adapted using data reported by Emery et al. [4])
Adverse Reactions to NSAIDs

This is the major limiting factor to using NSAIDs. As a class
NSAIDs are probably the commonest group of drugs for
causing adverse events (Table 5.3). The risks increase mark-
edly with age and NSAIDs must be used carefully in the
elderly. Minor adverse effects such as dyspepsia and head-
ache are commonplace. Central nervous system side-effects,
such as drowsiness and confusion, are often underestimated.
Hematologic side-effects are very unusual. NSAIDs can also
exacerbate asthma and cause rashes, though these are usually
mild.
Prostaglandins regulate kidney function, especially intra-
renal perfusion. As a consequence NSAIDs inevitably carry
Table 5.3 Adverse reactions to NSAIDs

Area Type of adverse reaction
Gastrointestinal Dyspepsia
Peptic ulceration
Small bowel ulcers and
enteropathy
Renal Acute and chronic renal failure
Interstitial nephritis
Cardiovascular Exacerbation of cardiac failure
Exacerbation of hypertension
Hepatic Elevated transaminases
Hepatic failure (rare)
Central nervous system Headache
Drowsiness
Confusion
Haematological Thrombocytopenia
Haemolytic anaemia
Adverse Reactions to NSAIDs 79
a risk of adversely effecting renal function. These renal side

effects are dose-dependent and occur in a small but consis-
tent proportion of patients. Common problems comprise
peripheral oedema, hypertension, and reduced effects of
diuretics and anti-hypertensive drugs. When renal blood flow
is reduced, for example by cardiac failure or diuretic use, the
added inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis by NSAIDs fur-
ther impairs blood flow, and this can cause overt renal failure.
This problem is particularly likely in the elderly. Other renal
problems seen occasionally include acute renal failure,
hyperkalaemia, and interstitial nephritis and papillary
necrosis.
Gastrointestinal Adverse Effects
These side effects are the main problem with NSAIDs. The
range of adverse effects includes dyspepsia, gastric erosions,
peptic ulceration, bleeding, perforation, haematemesis or
melaena, small bowel inflammation, occult blood loss and
anaemia.
Between 10 and 20 out of every 1,000 RA patients taking
NSAIDs for 1 year will have serious gastrointestinal compli-
cations. The mortality risks attributable to NSAID-related GI
adverse effects are four times that for those not using
NSAIDs. There is some evidence that gastro-intestinal mor-
tality from NSAIDs is similar in its extent to other major
causes of death such as melanoma and leukaemia. The most
serious problems are perforations, ulcers and bleeds. There is
some evidence that the risk of GI adverse events differs
across NSAIDs (Fig. 5.3) [5].
Many patients who have serious gastro-intestinal compli-
cations do not have prior dyspepsia. In the absence of warn-
ing signs there is no way to ascertain if a patient is on the
point of developing serious problems. Therefore if NSAID
use is unavoidable, some protective strategy is needed, par-
ticularly in those patients at greatest risk. There are several
potential options.
4
Relative risk
0
Ibuprofen Naproxen Diclofenac Celecoxib
Figure 5.3 The risk of gastrointestinal adverse events stratified by

NSAID type (From systematic review by Castellsague et al., figure
adapted using data reported by Castellsague et al. [5])
One choice is to co-prescribe proton pump inhibitors, such

as omeprazole. This is effective and acceptable to patients.
H2-receptor antagonists also help, but are less effective than
proton pump inhibitors. A third choice is to co-prescribe pros-
taglandin analogues, such as misoprostol. This is also effective,
but causes added side effects such as diarrhoea and is less well
tolerated than proton pump inhibitors. The final option is to
use a safer NSAID one of the newer COX-2 drugs.
Although COXIBs increase the incidence of gastrointesti-
nal adverse events compared to placebo, the magnitude is
substantially less than with standard NSAID therapy. They
reduce the incidence of gastric erosions on endoscopy
compared to standard NSAIDs. However, the value of this
finding as a surrogate for peptic ulceration and other major
gastrointestinal adverse effects in routine clinical practice is
uncertain. Many experts also recommend combining proton
Adverse Reactions to NSAIDs 81
pump inhibitors with COXIBs to maximise gastrointestinal

safety.
The key evidence focuses on their effect on peptic ulcer-
ations, perforations and bleeds. These have been studied in a
number of large trials involving several thousand patients.
The balance of evidence is that these drugs reduce serious
upper gastro-intestinal adverse events to the same level as
that seen with placebo treatment and substantially below that
with conventional NSAIDs.
These are broadly similar to those seen with conventional
NSAIDs. Patients still have renal, central nervous system and
other effects. However, there is also no evidence of any
increases in other adverse effects, so the overall benefit for
patients taking these drugs remains significant.
Cardiovascular Adverse Effects
There have been concerns that NSAIDs in general and

COXIBs in particular increase the risk of heart attacks and
strokes. The data about cardiovascular risks with NSAIDs
overall is controversial and incomplete. Some trials and some
observational studies have found more cardiac problems;
other trials have not done so [6]. Overall the risk of myocar-
dial infarction on conventional NSAIDs appears small,
although the risk may vary depending on the type of conven-
tional NSAID used (Fig. 5.4) [7].
One COXIB rofecoxib shows an increased risk in most
circumstances [7]. It was consequently withdrawn. Other
COXIBs and conventional NSAIDs do not show an increased
risk in most situations. However, they need to be given with
caution. It is generally recommended that the lowest dose for
the shortest period of time is a sensible policy. Patients at risk
of cardiac disease should not receive NSAIDs, and in
particular should avoid COXIBs. As well as cardiac infarc-
tions some drugs, including rofecoxib, have an increased risk
of fluid retention and can cause an increased propensity to
cardiac failure.
1.75
1.50
Odds ratio
1.25
1.00
0.75
Any Naproxen Celecoxib Ibuprofen Diclofenac
NSAID
Figure 5.4 The risk of cardiovascular adverse events stratified by

NSAID type (From systematic review by Scott et al., figure adapted
using data reported by Scott et al. [7])
On the other hand, any potential cardiac risks of COXIBs

are offset by a reduction in risk of serious gastrointestinal
ulcers and other major upper gastrointestinal adverse events.
Use in Specific Forms of Arthritis
Historically NSAIDs were considered first line treatment in

RA. However, this classical approach is now considered inap-
propriate and patients need to start disease modifying drugs
as soon as possible. This issue is discussed in detail in the fol-
lowing chapters.
Currently analgesics and NSAIDs are used to provide
additional symptomatic control in RA, when pain and morn-
ing stiffness are dominant symptoms which are not controlled
by disease modifying therapy alone [8, 9].
Use in Specific Forms of Arthritis 83
A few patients with mild disease can manage on NSAIDs

and analgesics alone. However, in the majority of patients
they are used intermittently to gain improved control of
symptoms. They are best avoided for long-term treatment.
In some patients taking disease modifying drugs, particu-
larly methotrexate, there can be interactions with NSAIDs.
Caution is needed in these patients. Elderly patients, and
those with multiple comorbidities, are most likely to have
adverse effects with NSAIDs and their use should be mini-
mised in these patients.
Psoriatic Arthritis and Seronegative

Spondyloarthritis
The situation is somewhat different in PsA and there is a
greater emphasis on the early use of NSAIDs in these
patients [10, 11]. The balance of expert opinion is unanimous
in recommending NSAIDs as first-line treatment for most
patients with psoriatic arthritis, though there is a general
realisation that the data supporting their value is limited.
NSAIDs are effective in reducing joint symptoms in patients
with psoriatic arthritis. They have no benefits on skin lesions.
When using NSAIDs risks of gastrointestinal and cardio-
vascular adverse events need to be considered. Not all
patients with signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis need
NSAID treatment. Some patients respond well to analgesics
alone. Others may not need any symptomatic therapy. As
with all patients the lowest dose and the shortest treatment
duration possible is appropriate when using NSAIDs in these
patients.
NSAIDs are highly effective in AS and are also recom-

mended for non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis [12].
They rapidly improve inflammatory back pain and stiffness.
However, concerns about their long-term safety and their

adverse effects lead to NSAIDs being stopped in many
patients. The risks associated with NSAIDs make many clini-
cians reluctant to prescribe continuous NSAID therapy.
Some experts favour this approach, and it might result in less
radiographic progression of spinal AS. However, this remains
a controversial issue. Nevertheless the balance of evidence
suggests trying to control symptoms in all AS patients using
NSAIDs. Analgesics can sometimes provide some additional
benefit.
References
1. Hazlewood G, van der Heijde DM, Bombardier C. Paracetamol
for the management of pain in inflammatory arthritis: a system-
atic literature review. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2012;90:116.
2. Whittle SL, Richards BL, Husni E, Buchbinder R. Opioid ther-
apy for treating rheumatoid arthritis pain. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev. 2011;(11):CD003113.
3. Vane JR, Botting RM. Anti-inflammatory drugs and their mech-
anism of action. Inflamm Res. 1998;47 Suppl 2:S7887.
4. Emery P, Zeidler H, Kvien TK, Guslandi M, Naudin R, Stead H,
et al. Celecoxib versus diclofenac in long-term management of
rheumatoid arthritis: randomised double-blind comparison.
Lancet. 1999;354:210611.
5. Castellsague J, Riera-Guardia N, Calingaert B, Varas-Lorenzo C,
Fourrier-Reglat A, Nicotra F, et al. Individual NSAIDs and
upper gastrointestinal complications: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of observational studies (the SOS project). Drug
Saf. 2012;35:112746.
6. Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Wandel S, Hildebrand P, Tschannen B,
Villiger PM, et al. Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;342:c7086.
7. Scott PA, Kingsley GH, Smith CM, Choy EH, Scott
DL. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and myocardial
infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from
observational studies and randomised controlled trials. Ann
Rheum Dis. 2007;66:1296304.
References 85
8. Wienecke T, Gotzsche PC. Paracetamol versus nonsteroidal anti-

inflammatory drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD003789.
9. Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Fry-Smith A, Harris
G, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib,
etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and
rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evalua-
tion. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:1278.
10. Nash P, Clegg DO. Psoriatic arthritis therapy: NSAIDs and tra-
ditional DMARDs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64 Suppl 2:ii7477.
11. Gossec L, Smolen JS, Gaujoux-Viala C, Ash Z, Marzo-Ortega H,
van der Heijde D, et al. European League Against Rheumatism
recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with
pharmacological therapies. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:412.
12. Guellec D, Nocturne G, Tatar Z, Pham T, Sellam J, Cantagrel A,
et al. Should non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs be used con-
tinuously in ankylosing spondylitis? Joint Bone Spine.
2014;81:30812.
Chapter 6
Disease-Modifying
Anti-Rheumatic Drugs
Abstract DMARDs are a diverse range of drugs. They form a

single group because they both improve symptoms and modify
the course of the disease. They form the cornerstone of inflam-
matory arthritis management. A range of DMARDs exist.
Methotrexate is most commonly used in clinical practice, fol-
lowed by sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. All DMARDs
have potential adverse events and require monitoring, often
with blood tests. Historically patients were treated with a single
DMARD at a time (termed DMARD monotherapy). There has
been a recent shift towards starting more than one DMARD
at the same time (termed DMARD combination therapy) in
patients with RA. This chapter will provide an overview of the
different available DMARDs, their mechanisms of action, risks
and benefits alongside the evidence base supporting their use.
Keywords DMARD Methotrexate Sulfasalazine

Hydroxychloroquine Efficacy Side-Effects
Background
DMARDs are a diverse range of drugs. They form a single
group because they both improve symptoms and also, to a
greater or lesser extent, modify the course of the disease. This

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_6,
88 Chapter 6. Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs
Table 6.1 The range of Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs

(DMARDs) used
Frequency of
use DMARD
Commonly
used Methotrexate Leflunomide Sulfasalazine
Infrequently Hydroxychlor Injectable Azathioprine
used oquine gold
Rarely used Ciclosporin Auranofin Cyclophosphamide
means they reduce the progression of erosive joint damage

and decrease disability [1].
Ideally DMARDs would result in remission. However,
there is little evidence that they generally achieve this goal.
Their failure to do so led to the abandonment of an earlier
term remission inducing drugs. Another collective term
that has fallen out of use is slow-acting anti-rheumatic drugs
[2]; this fell out of favour because in some patients these drugs
may have relatively rapid onsets of action.
Currently Used Conventional DMARDs

Many drugs have some features of DMARDs, but only a few
have been accepted into clinical practice. The use of DMARDs
varies with a small number being particularly favoured. The
current situation is summarised in Table 6.1. At present
methotrexate is the dominant DMARD. Over 80 % of
patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with DMARDs
who are seen in most specialist units are receiving methotrex-
ate. Only sulfasalazine and leflunomide are also used to any
appreciable extent in addition to methotrexate.
The use of DMARDs broadly follows the strength of evi-
dence about their efficacy. The efficacy of DMARDs involves:
Less joint inflammation with fewer swollen joints and falls
in ESR and C-reactive protein
Decreased progression of joint damage, particularly erosive
damage
Improved levels of disability and quality of life
Monitoring DMARDs 89
The harms, or adverse events, related to DMARDs include:

Common problems to most DMARDs like low white cell
or platelet counts
Unique toxicities with specific DMARDs, such as ocular
toxicity with hydroxychloroquine.
A systematic review comparing trials of the main
DMARDs concluded that methotrexate, sulfasalazine and
leflunomide all showed similar efficacy and toxicity [3]. The
main conclusions are shown in Table 6.2. One problem in
these comparisons is that the trials involve one fixed dose
against another fixed dose and in practice treatment is tar-
geted at individual patients. Another problem in that older
studies used doses of methotrexate that are currently consid-
ered to be suboptimal. However, for practical purposes the
evidence suggests these three treatments are similar.
Starting DMARDs
In patients with definite rheumatoid arthritis DMARDs are
started as soon as the diagnosis has been made. The evidence
in favour of early DMARDs, though incomplete, is compel-
ling. Most experts recommend starting with methotrexate.
Monitoring DMARDs
The risk of blood and hepatic toxicity means that most
DMARDs require monthly blood monitoring tests. This
practice began because it was possible to predict patients at
risk of marrow toxicity with gold injections by prospective
monitoring; this approach substantially improved safety
risks. With modern treatment the risks are less clear cut and
the benefits of monitoring are more questionable. However,
in some patients adverse events involving the blood and
liver can be detected on monitoring and such reactions
carry substantial risks for patients. Consequently monitor-
ing has become part of the standard approach to DMARD
treatment [4].
Table 6.2 Comparison of efficacy and harms for different DMARD

monotherapies
Leflunomide vs. Leflunomide vs. Sulfasalazine vs.
Comparison methotrexate sulfasalazine methotrexate
Efficacy Similar Greater Similar
improvements improvements improvements
in joint in joint in joint
inflammation inflammation inflammation,
and erosive for function and
damage leflunomide radiographic
responses
Greater Greater
improvement improvement
in functional in functional
status and for
health-related leflunomide
quality of life
for leflunomide
Similar work Similar
productivity radiographic
outcomes responses
Harms No obvious No obvious No obvious
major major major
differences differences differences in
in adverse in adverse adverse events
events and events and
More patients
discontinuation discontinuation
received
rates rates
methotrexate
than
sulfasalazine
Table adapted using data reported by Donahue et al. [3]
Stopping DMARDs
DMARDs are stopped for toxicity and for loss of effect.
Often these overlap. In patients who have entered remission
or a state of low activity the benefit of continuing DMARDs
is often questioned. The evidence suggests that stopping
treatment in such patients often results in a disease flare;
consequently it is not generally recommended [5].
Early and Late Disease 91
All
Leflunomide
Hydroxychloroquine
Sulfasalazine
Methotrexate
0 10 20 30 40 50
Median retention time (months)
Figure 6.1 Retention rates for DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid

arthritis (Figure adapted using data reported by Agarwal et al. [6])
The frequency of stopping DMARD monotherapies is

high. Almost half of patients initiating DMARDs discontinue
treatment over the next 23 years. Retention rates differ
across DMARDs, with patients remaining on methotrexate
longer than other DMARDs (Fig. 6.1) [6]. This finding has
been confirmed in many different observational studies. Such
low retention rates make it particularly crucial to consider
carefully the benefits and risks of discontinuing DMARDs in
patients in whom therapy is controlling RA and is not causing
adverse effects.
Early and Late Disease

DMARD use is comparable in all stages of inflammatory
arthritis. Patients who need DMARDs in early disease are
equally likely to continue using them in later stages of the
disease.
Intensive Treatment
Historically DMARDs were given singly as DMARD
monotherapy but there has been a shift in practice over the
last 2 years to using then in combination with each other.
There are two ways of giving combination therapy:
Step-down: starting combinations together and then stop-
ping one or more DMARDs
Step-up: starting one DMARD and then adding another if
needed.
In addition combinations can involve two DMARDs,
DMARDs and steroids, and DMARDs and biologics.
Ideally patients with the worst prognosis would be identified
rapidly and then given intensive treatment to control their
arthritis as soon as possible. However, this has proved problem-
atic to do as at present it is difficult to identify patients with poor
prognoses with sufficient accuracy to justify a policy of starting
intensive DMARD combinations in specific groups of patients.
Treat to Target
The concept of treat to target builds on intensive manage-
ment approaches in rheumatoid arthritis [7]. It sets a goal of
reducing disease activity to very low levels or remission. With
modern treatments this appears increasingly realistic. It should
reduce long-term structural damage and improve quality of
life. Treat to target involves setting a clear end point, which in
this case is the target of remission, and establishing a specific
treatment algorithm, which simplifies the many complex treat-
ment sequences available to treat arthritis. However, there are
some complexities. The definition of treat to target varies and
a range of different data is used to justify its benefits. Some
patients are reluctant to receive more intensive treatment due
to concern over adverse effects. Finally, the evidence that
remission is generally achievable in active rheumatoid arthritis
is incomplete no matter how patients are treated.
Changes in Clinical Trials 93
Seronegative Arthritis
Seronegative rheumatoid arthritis responds similarly to sero-
positive disease. Patients with other forms of inflammatory
arthritis such as psoriatic arthritis and reactive arthritis are
treated in the same way as patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
The evidence for using DMARDs in seronegative spondylo-
arthritis, particularly psoriatic arthritis, is weaker than that
for rheumatoid arthritis. However, the evidence that
DMARDs have different effects in any form of inflammatory
arthritis is incomplete. Most rheumatologists consider they
provide comparable results [8], though some experts are
unconvinced about the role of methotrexate in psoriatic
arthritis. One important point is that DMARDs do not
appear to improve either the spinal disease or enthesopathy
of seronegative spondyloarthritis [9].
Changes in Clinical Trials
Reduction in Joint Counts and Acute Phase

Proteins
When patients are treated with DMARDs there are falls in
their tender and swollen joint counts over 36 months
(Fig. 6.2). After 6 months the joint counts stabilise and they
do not fall further. Although there is a small improvement
with placebo, there are larger falls with active DMARDs.
Whether or not the effect of placebo is due to a specific
response or is an example of regression to the mean is
uncertain. Unfortunately some residual disease activity exists.
The pattern of change is similar with other assessments of
disease activity, including swollen joint counts and acute
phase measures like the ESR.
After 6 months the reductions in clinical responses are
maintained as long as patients remain on treatment [11].
This is shown for 1 and 2 years in Fig. 6.3. Overall the pat-
tern of improvements is broadly similar with methotrexate,
Weeks
0 4 12 24
0
4
Placebo
6
8 SZP
10 Leflunomide
Figure 6.2 Falls in tender joint counts with placebo, sulfasalazine and
leflunomide (Figure adapted using data reported by Smolen et al. [10])
leflunomide and sulfasalazine [10, 12]. There is no need to

prefer one DMARD over another on the basis of clinical
responses.
American College of Rheumatology

Responses (ACR)
Effective DMARDs result in greater ACR20 and ACR50
responses over 612 months than placebo treatment. This is
shown in Fig. 6.4 using the largest available trial data with
DMARDs the leflunomide Phase III trials that involved
the key three DMARDs and placebo treatment [13].
Improved Disability
DMARDs improve disability over 12 months or longer,

especially in those patients who remain on treatment.
This is seen with all major DMARDs. Health Assessment
Questionnaire scores decreased by about one third with
effective DMARD therapy and remained thereafter at this
lower average level.
Changes in Clinical Trials 95
12 Methotrexate
10
6 Year 1
4 Year 2
0
Tender Swollen ESR C-reactive
joint count joint count protein
12 Leflunomide
10
6 Year 1
4 Year 2
0
Tender Swollen ESR C-reactive
joint count joint count protein
Figure 6.3 Falls in joint counts and acute phase reactants with
methotrexate and leflunomide treatment (Figure adapted using data
reported by Cohen et al. [11])
Radiological Damage
The evidence the different DMARDs reduce the progression

of erosive damage is complex and not all studies give similar
results. There are many ways of assessing damage and the
Leflunomide (n = 753) Sulphasalazine (n = 76)

80 % Methotrexate (n = 669) Placebo (n = 113)
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
ACR20 ACR50
Figure 6.4 Changes in ACR20 and ACR50 responses with DMARDs

(Figure adapted using data reported by Scott and Strand [13])
differences between them are complicated. A simple approach

is shown in Fig. 6.5, which compares erosive progression with
and without DMARDs in different trials [14]. One complex-
ity is that fewer patients now show marked erosive progres-
sion during the course of their rheumatoid arthritis. This
means that the rate of progression was more marked in ear-
lier trials and the impact of DMARDs seemed larger.
Methotrexate
Background
Methotrexate has become the main DMARD. Although it is

an elderly drug, which has been used for over 50 years, its
rise to prominence in inflammatory arthritis is more recent.
The balance of its efficacy, safety, ease of administration and
patient acceptability has made it a key treatment option. It
is now considered to be the anchor drug in treating
Methotrexate 97
Percent patients
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Leflunomide (a)
Leflunomide (b)
Treatment Placebo
Methotrexate
Parenteral gold (a)
Parenteral gold (b)

Parenteral gold (c)
Sulfasalazine (a)
Sulfasalazine (b)
Chloroquine (a)
Chloroquine (b)
Hydroxychloroquine
Figure 6.5 The chance of erosive progression with and without

DMARDs (a, b and c refer to different studies of each DMARD;
Figure adapted using data reported by Jones et al. [14])
inflammatory arthritis, and that this role may have been

enhanced by its positive interaction with biologic treat-
ments [15].
Methotrexate is an anti-metabolite; it inhibits folate metabo-
lism, and was first used to treat cancer. In arthritis it used at low
doses; at such doses it does not kill cells and exerts its effects on
joint inflammation by other mechanisms. It affects adenosine
metabolism, leucocyte accumulation and angiogenesis.
Clinical Use and Efficacy
Low-dose methotrexate in arthritis is given weekly. It is usu-

ally given by mouth but can be given by subcutaneous or
intramuscular injections. Patient acceptability and adverse
reactions determine which route is used. Methotrexate is
strongly bound to plasma proteins; there is a theoretical risk
of free methotrexate levels increasing because of displacement
ACR70
ACR50
ACR20
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
Oral Subcutaneous
Figure 6.6 Six-month trial of oral and subcutaneous methotrexate

(Figure adapted using data reported by Braun et al. [16])
from albumin by highly bound drugs like non-steroidal anti-

inflammatory drugs, but this is not a practical problem.
Oral or parenteral (subcutaneous) methotrexate is usually
started at doses between 7.5 and 10 mg/week. The dose is
incrementally increased to target dose of 1520 mg/week.
This target dose has gradually increased over the years. Some
experts recommend going up to 25 mg/week. If patients have
difficulty tolerating higher doses the amount of methotrexate
given can be restricted below 15 mg/week.
There is some evidence that subcutaneous methotrexate is
more effective than oral treatment (Fig. 6.6) [16]. Therefore
in patients in whom oral methotrexate gives incomplete
responses some rheumatologists recommend converting to
subcutaneous methotrexate improves efficacy.
Methotrexate is conventionally given with low dose folic
acid, which reduces the risk of adverse reactions, particularly
hepatic toxicity. It also reduces other gastrointestinal adverse
effects. The optimal dose schedule is uncertain, though 5 mg
weekly appears adequate. This level of folic acid supplemen-
tation has no more than a modest impact on efficacy.
A particular concern with methotrexate is ensuring
patients do not inadvertently take the wrong dose. There are
Methotrexate 99
reports of patients taking methotrexate daily rather than

weekly and also of patients receiving 10 mg tablets rather
than 2.5 mg tablets. When prescribing methotrexate it is
essential to ensure the dose is correct.
Adverse Reactions
Adverse events are common with methotrexate, though most

events are minor and can usually be managed without stop-
ping therapy. Some of the main problems are as follows:
Gastrointestinal problems: these are dominant and include
anorexia, nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea.
Stomatitis: including erythema, painful ulcers and erosions
Alopecia: this is frequent and causes particular concern in
women.
Other skin reactions: including urticaria, and cutaneous
vasculitis.
Central Nervous System problems: including headaches,
drowsiness and ataxia
General problems: examples include fever, fatigue and
myalgias.
Infections, including opportunistic infections with organ-
isms like Pneumocystis carinii, fungal infections and local-
ised or disseminated herpes zoster sometimes occur.
There are also a number of serious side effects including:
(a) Bone marrow toxicity: mild to moderate leucopenia,
which responds to withdrawal of the drug. More severe
bone marrow suppression may be treated with leucovo-
rin or recombinant colony-stimulating factors.
(b) Liver toxicity: mild transaminase elevations are common but
serious hepatotoxicity leading to fibrosis or cirrhosis is rare.
(c) Pulmonary interstitial disease: this can develop suddenly
and may progress to fibrosis. It is sometimes fatal. It often
occurs early in therapy. The development of a cough is
often a warning feature. Patients need to have a plain
chest x-ray before starting treatment.
Accelerated nodulosis, with small nodules on the fingers or

elbows, occurs occasionally. The nodules are indistinguishable
from other rheumatoid nodules. Some experts stop methotrexate
and others suggest an additional drug like hydroxychloroquine.
Methotrexate is teratogenic and should not be given in
pregnant women. Women taking methotrexate who may
become pregnant need reliable methods of birth control. A
6 month delay after stopping methotrexate is recommended
for women who wish to conceive. Breast-feeding is not rec-
ommended while taking methotrexate as the drug may enter
the mothers milk.
Methotrexate may lower sperm counts in men; these nor-
malise after it is stopped. It is conventional to recommend
that males discontinue methotrexate for up to 6 months prior
to attempting conception.
Leflunomide
Background
Leflunomide is the only new DMARD to have been intro-
duced in the last two decades. It was developed as an immu-
nosuppressant and acts as a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor
with consequential anti-proliferative activity. Leflunomide is
a prodrug and is rapidly converted in the gastrointestinal
tract and plasma to its active metabolite, a malononitrilamide,
which is responsible for its activity in vivo.
The active metabolite of leflunomide has a range of
effects, which include:
Inhibiting pyrimidine synthesis: inhibits dihydroorotate
dehydrogenase
Inhibiting nuclear factor kappa-B activation
Reducing cell-cell contact
Reducing bone marrow cell proliferation
Inhibiting synovial nitric oxide production
The effect on pyrimidine synthesis is mediated by the inhi-
bition of dihydroorotate dehydrogenase, the rate-limiting
Leflunomide 101
step in the de novo synthesis of pyrimidines. Unlike other

cells, activated lymphocytes expand their pyrimidine pool
eightfold during proliferation. Thus the inhibition of
dihydroorotate dehydrogenase prevents lymphocytes from
accumulating sufficient pyrimidines to support DNA synthe-
sis and has a consequent immunomodulatory effect. This is
thought to be the main effect.
Peak levels of the active metabolite are seen 612 h after
oral dosing. As the active metabolite has a long half-life, in
the region of 2 weeks, loading doses of 100 mg for 3 days were
used in the initial clinical studies to facilitate the rapid attain-
ment of steady-state levels of the active metabolite. In the
absence of a loading dose steady-state plasma concentrations
require about 2 months of dosing.
Clinical Use and Efficacy
Rheumatologists have three different ways of starting leflu-

nomide. Historically a loading dose was used of 100 mg
daily for 3 days. This increased plasma levels rapidly and
ensured a rapid onset of action. However, it may give higher
risks of adverse events. An alternative is to start with the
main dosage level of 20 mg daily and accept a slower onset
of action with a reduced level of adverse events. In some
patients where there are concerns about adverse reactions a
lower starting dose of 10 mg is sometimes used. There is
limited objective evidence supporting this more conserva-
tive approach.
Adverse Events
The profile of side effects with leflunomide is broadly similar

to those seen with methotrexate. The main specific adverse
reactions seen with leflunomide comprise:
Gastrointestinal reactions, particularly diarrhoea are often
seen; omitting the loading dose reduces the frequency and
severity of diarrhoea.
Hypertension is seen some cases, though it can be difficult

to differentiate the effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs from leflunomide in raising the blood pressure.
Occasional patients report weight loss with leflunomide,
though its relationship to therapy is uncertain.
As with other DMARDs there is also a small increased risk
of infections, reflecting its role as an immunosuppressive agent.
Haematological problems are sometimes seen and a few
patients have developed low white cell counts or low platelet
count; in these circumstances treatment needs to be stopped.
Lung problems including interstitial lung disease have been
seen with leflunomide; they are uncommon. Skin problems are
often seen and may need treatment to be stopped.
A major cause of concern with leflunomide is liver dam-
age. Transient increases in liver enzymes are commonplace,
and usually need no more than careful observation. If the
levels rise by more than three times normal treatment should
be stopped. A few patients have developed cirrhosis or liver
failure whilst taking leflunomide, though there is debate
about causality. Caution is needed in patients with prior liver
disease and those with significant alcohol intakes. To detect
liver problems early patients need regular monitoring of liver
function and also blood counts.
Leflunomide is a teratogenic DMARD, and should not be
given to women who are at risk of pregnancy. Given the long
half-life of the drug, it needs to be stopped for many months
prior to conception, and some authorities recommend a 2-year
period. Caution is also needed in men who wish to conceive.
There is a washout procedure for patients with severe side
effects or in men or women considering conception. This
involves giving cholestryramine or activated powdered char-
coal for 1 or 2 weeks.
Sulfasalazine
Sulfasalazine combines an anti-inflammatory agent
(5-aminosalicylic acid) with a sulfonamide antibiotic (sulfa-
pyridine), which if often thought to be the active component.
Other DMARDs 103
There is extensive metabolism of sulfasalazine and its two

constituents after the drug is taken. Its mechanism of action
is unknown. However, there is experimental evidence that it
inhibits T cells, B cells and cytokine production.
Sulfasalazine is given orally with a target dose is 23 g
daily. To minimise upper gastrointestinal side effects such as
nausea treatment is initiated at 500 mg daily rising slowly to
2 or 3 g. It is usually given in an enteric coated formulation,
which also helps to minimise adverse effects.
Sulphasalazine causes may adverse effects in addition to
gastrointestinal disturbances and these include:
Haematological problems such as leucopenia, neutrope-
nia, agranulocytosis and thrombocytopenia.
Hypersensitivity reactions such as rashes, Stevens-Johnson
Syndrome, exfoliative dermatitis, urticaria, photosensitisation,
anaphylaxis, fever, lymphadenopathy and periorbital oedema
Central nervous system problems such as vertigo and
tinnitus
Hepatic dysfunction, which is usually mild but can be severe.
Oligospermia, which is reversible on discontinuance
It requires monitoring for blood and liver toxicity in the early
stages. One especial concern is allergic neutropenia that occurs
in both early and late treatment and is difficult to predict.
One specific advantage with sulfasalazine is that it can be
used in pregnant women. Long-term clinical usage and exper-
imental studies have failed to show any teratogenic hazards.
Although caution is needed in breast feeding mothers, the
amounts of drug present in the milk is not generally thought
to present a risk to healthy infants.
Other DMARDs
Injectable Gold
Gold salts are the oldest DMARD and are also the most
toxic. They take months before showing evidence of efficacy.
Gold is usually given as gold sodium thiomalate, though gold
sodium thioglucose can also be given.
The mechanisms by which gold work have been investi-

gated for many years, but little is known. As the use of gold
resulted from serendipity rather than design, there was no
prior hypothesis about how it works. As its use predated the
modern era by the time its effects could be reliably investi-
gated there was little interest in evaluating them. In addition,
injectable gold is a complex compound, and contains many
constituents formed after manufacture.
Injectable gold is by weekly intramuscular injections
(50 mg) for 20 weeks and then reduced to monthly. Based
empirically on clinical experience, the following schedule is
recommended: Initial test doses of 10 mg are given to mini-
mize the risk of toxicity.
Adverse events are common with gold and often severe.
These include post injection reactions, rashes, stomatitis and
pruritus. Less common but more serious adverse reactions
are the nephrotic syndrome, low white cell counts, thrombo-
cytopenia, bone marrow aplasia, interstitial lung disease and
peripheral neuropathies.
Hydroxychloroquine
This anti-malarial drug was used in rheumatology to treat sys-
temic lupus erythematosus. Subsequent placebo-controlled
trials confirmed its efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis. It is
thought to be most useful in mild early disease. It is usually
given at a dose of 400 mg/day. It is less effective than metho-
trexate or sulfasalazine. It has little effect on erosive damage.
Common adverse effects include rash, abdominal cramps
and diarrhoea. Its main toxicity is the rare but highly unpleas-
ant complication of retinopathy. Some form of retinal screen-
ing is recommended for patients starting hydroxychloroquine.
Patients at higher risk of retinopathy, who are over 60 years
of age, have over 5 years treatment or use doses greater than
6.5 mg/kg/day, need regular review, with annual ophthalmo-
logical examination.
Other DMARDs 105
Ciclosporin
Ciclosporin is an immunosuppressant that is widely used in

organ transplantation. It was used in inflammatory arthritis
because of its immunosuppressive properties and effects on
T-cell function. Although it is effective its use is limited by
toxicity, which is dose dependent. Its adverse effects, particu-
larly nephrotoxicity and hypertension, mean its long-term use
is problematic. Though the decline in renal function seen in
some patients taking ciclosporin is reversed when therapy is
discontinued, this is a major limitation. Ciclosporin is usually
confined to use in refractory RA when no other obvious
therapeutic options are available.
Azathioprine
Azathioprine is also used because of its systemic immunosup-

pressive effects. It is a pro-drug of 6-mercaptopurine.
Although it is effective; the results in trials are inconsistent.
There is little evidence it affects erosive damage.
A particular concern is the risk of serious haematological
toxicity. A relative decrease in the activity of the enzyme
thiopurine methyltransferase is a risk factor for bone marrow
suppression. Genotyping patients to identify those most at
risk might prevent such adverse events. Azathioprine is
mainly used in refractory disease when patients have failed
other agents.
Minor DMARDs
Oral gold, penicillamine and cyclophosphamide are rarely
used to treat inflammatory arthritis. Oral gold has limited effi-
cacy and the other drugs have excessive toxicity. They are used
in occasional patients in whom other options are limited.
Combining DMARDs
Rationale
As many patients fail to respond to conventional DMARD

monotherapy there has been considerable interest in combin-
ing one or more DMARDs.
The arguments that have been used to justify combination
therapy include the following:
monotherapy is inadequate
low doses of combined DMARDs improve toxicity and
efficacy ratios
using DMARDs sequentially deprives patients of residual
benefits of the failed drug
sequential use of inadequate monotherapy means patients
in the early critical phase of their disease are not well
controlled.
Until recently there were concerns that combination
DMARD therapy offered limited benefits over conventional
monotherapy. However perspective has now changed and
there is wide support for combination DMARDs [17].
Effective Combinations
1. Methotrexate, Hydroxychloroquine And Sulfasalazine:

there is extensive evidence that this combination is both
more effective than its component DMARDs and also less
toxic. This is probably because the doses of each individual
DMARD are minimised. Longer-term follow-up shows
the benefits of treatment persist for 3 years. Combining any
two of these three drugs, such as methotrexate and sul-
fasalazine, also has some benefits though these are less
marked.
2. Methotrexate and Leflunomide: there is considerable evi-
dence that combining leflunomide in patients with an
incomplete response to methotrexate improves disease
Combining DMARDS 107
activity without excessive adverse events. There have been

concerns that this combination may give rise to excessive
liver toxicity. Care is therefore needed when using it and
careful monitoring of liver function is advisable.
3. Leflunomide and Sulfasalazine: there is some evidence this
combination is moderately effective and safe.
4. Methotrexate and Ciclosporin: several studies show meth-
otrexate can be combined with ciclosporin. Although prob-
lems of toxicity with ciclosporin remain, as its dose can be
lowered these problems are minimised.
5. Methotrexate and Gold: there is some evidence this com-
bination is effective and safe.
6. Leflunomide and Ciclosporin: there is limited evidence this
combination is effective and safe.
Ineffective Combinations
Not all DMARD combinations are useful. With some there is

limited efficacy or excessive toxicity. Combinations involving
penicillamine appear ineffective. There is also evidence that
combining gold injections with hydroxychloroquine has lim-
ited benefit and excessive toxicity.
Intensive Treatments in Early Disease
In early inflammatory arthritis combining two DMARDs

with steroids, particularly an initially high dose that is reduced
rapidly over a few months, is an attractive option in early
disease. It was first described in a Dutch trial named the
COBRA study, and is often termed the COBRA regimen
[18]. The DMARDs involved can be methotrexate and sul-
fasalazine or methotrexate and ciclosporin. There is no evi-
dence of excessive toxicity. A particular feature of this
approach is the reduction in the progression of erosive dam-
age, which can be marked. Some experts replace the high
dose, short-term steroid regimen with either intermittent
intra-muscular steroids or with lower doses of oral steroids.
Monotherapy Combination therapy
Methotrexate vs
methotrexate/doxycycline
DMARD monotherapy vs
DMARD combination therapy
Methotrexate vs
methotrexate/ciclosporin
Methotrexate vs
Methotrexate vs
0% 20 % 40 % 60 %
Percent patients
Figure 6.7 The impact of combination DMARDs on ACR70

responses, supporting the use of combination therapy (Figure
adapted using data reported by Ma et al. [19])
Overall Effectiveness of Combinations
There is compelling evidence that combinations are preferable

to monotherapy. An example of these benefits is shown by the
impact on ACR70 responses from a review by Ma et al. (Fig. 6.7)
[19]. However, not all experts reach identical conclusions using
the same data and trials. This is because there are many different
ways to combine DMARDs and the conclusions are influenced
by whether all trials of all combinations are considered or if each
type of combination is viewed separately.
Seronegative Spondyloarthritis
There is limited data and very few trials of using combination

DMARDs in patients with psoriatic arthritis and other forms of
seronegative arthritis. Some experts consider this is an appropriate
References 109
treatment approach and some research has been undertaken in

the area. For the present there is no immediate resolution of the
balance of risks and benefits. It seems sensible to have a cautious
approach to using combination DMARDs in these patients.
References
1. Gaujoux-Viala C, Nam J, Ramiro S, Landewe R, Buch MH,
Smolen JS, et al. Efficacy of conventional synthetic disease-
modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids and tofacitinib: a
systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the
EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid
arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:5105.
2. van Gestel AM, Haagsma CJ, Furst DE, van Riel PL. Treatment of
early rheumatoid arthritis patients with slow-acting anti-rheumatic
drugs (SAARDs). Baillieres Clin Rheumatol. 1997;11:6582.
3. Donahue KE, Gartlehner G, Jonas DE, Lux LJ, Thieda P, Jonas
BL, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and
harms of disease-modifying medications for rheumatoid arthri-
tis. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:12434.
4. Chakravarty K, McDonald H, Pullar T, Taggart A, Chalmers R,
Oliver S, et al. BSR/BHPR guideline for disease-modifying anti-
rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in consultation with the
British Association of Dermatologists. Rheumatology (Oxford).
2008;47:9245.
5. OMahony R, Richards A, Deighton C, Scott D. Withdrawal of
disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheuma-
toid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum
Dis. 2010;69:18236.
6. Agarwal S, Zaman T, Handa R. Retention rates of disease-
modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid
arthritis. Singapore Med J. 2009;50:68692.
7. Solomon DH, Bitton A, Katz JN, Radner H, Brown EM,
Fraenkel L. Review: treat to target in rheumatoid arthritis: fact,
fiction, or hypothesis? Arthritis Rheum. 2014;66:77582.
8. Huynh D, Kavanaugh A. Psoriatic arthritis: current therapy and
future approaches. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015;54:208.
9. Yang Z, Zhao W, Liu W, Lv Q, Dong X. Efficacy evaluation of
methotrexate in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis using
meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;52:34651.
10. Smolen JS, Kalden JR, Scott DL, Rozman B, Kvien TK, Larsen
A, et al. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with pla-
cebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-
blind, randomised, multicentre trial. European Leflunomide
Study Group. Lancet. 1999;353:25966.
11. Cohen S, Cannon GW, Schiff M, Weaver A, Fox R, Olsen N, et al.
Two-year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of
active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with
methotrexate. Utilization of Leflunomide in the Treatment of
Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial Investigator Group. Arthritis Rheum.
2001;44:198492.
12. Strand V, Cohen S, Schiff M, Weaver A, Fleischmann R, Cannon G,
et al. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide
compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid
Arthritis Investigators Group. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:254250.
13. Scott DL, Strand V. The effects of disease-modifying anti-
rheumatic drugs on the Health Assessment Questionnaire score.
Lessons from the leflunomide clinical trials database.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002;41:899909.
14. Jones G, Halbert J, Crotty M, Shanahan EM, Batterham M,
Ahern M. The effect of treatment on radiological progression in
rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of randomized placebo-
controlled trials. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42:613.
15. Favalli EG, Biggioggero M, Meroni PL. Methotrexate for the
treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the biologic era: still an
anchor drug? Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13:11028.
16. Braun J, Kastner P, Flaxenberg P, Wahrisch J, Hanke P, Demary
W, et al. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of subcu-
taneous versus oral administration of methotrexate in patients
with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of a six-month, multi-
center, randomized, double-blind, controlled, phase IV trial.
17. Pincus T, Castrejon I. Evidence that the strategy is more impor-
tant than the agent to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Data from clini-
cal trials of combinations of non-biologic DMARDs, with
protocol-driven intensification of therapy for tight control or
treat-to-target. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;71 Suppl 1:S3340.
18. Bijlsma JW. Disease control with glucocorticoid therapy in rheu-
matoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51 Suppl 4:iv913.
19. Ma MH, Kingsley GH, Scott DL. A systematic comparison of
combination DMARD therapy and tumour necrosis inhibitor
therapy with methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid
arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49:918.
Chapter 7
Biologics An Overview
Abstract The biologics used in inflammatory arthritis are

genetically engineered proteins derived from human genes.
They inhibit specific components of the immune system,
which play pivotal roles in driving or inhibiting inflamma-
tion in arthritis. Unlike conventional drugs that modify the
immune system as a whole, biologics affect specific com-
ponents of the immune system. Theoretically this targeted
approach is both more specific in its effects and causes fewer
adverse events. However, in reality the complex interac-
tions of cytokines and the multiplicity of cytokine targets
means it is difficult to predict the effectiveness and toxicity
of cytokine-based interventions such as biologics. There are
currently six different classes of biologics available for the
treatment of inflammatory arthritis patients. Each inhib-
its a different aspect of the immune driven inflammatory
pathway. This chapter will provide a broad overview of the
available biologics, the current treatment pathways dictating
their prescribing in the UK and the health economics issues
surrounding their use.
Keywords Biologics Anti-TNF Rituximab Tocilizumab

Abatacept Side-Effects

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_7,
112 Chapter 7. Biologics An Overview
Introduction
A biologic therapy, simply put, is a treatment that has been
derived from a biological process rather than being manufac-
tured chemically. In medical terms, this includes blood prod-
ucts, vaccinations and, more recently, monoclonal antibodies
(often called biologics).
Historically, long term outcomes in RA were considered
not to be modifiable [1]. The introduction of biologic drugs
has resulted in a complete shift of the goal posts of ther-
apy. Conventional anti- rheumatic drugs such as DMARDs
are small molecules that are designed to bind to and inter-
fere with a target receptor. However, a key challenge with
a small molecule agent is a lack of specificity. Methotrexate,
for example, targets multiple immune pathways including
neutrophils, B cells and T cells. The idea of a magic bullet
approach to target one specific immune process has long
been the goal of drug development in RA.
In the late 1990s Elliot et al. published a phase 2 trial of the
compound cA2, a monoclonal antibody later to be named
infliximab, targeting tumour necrosis factor (TNF) in patients
with RA [2]. Elliots study revealed results that were unparal-
leled in the field, with 2/24 patients in the placebo responding,
compared to 19/24 in those treated with 10 mg/kg of the study
drug. Infliximab moved into phase three trials producing
equally optimistic results [3]. Since the success of the first
anti-TNF, multiple other monoclonal antibodies have been
licensed for the treatment of RA. There are now numerous
anti-TNF agents, as well as monoclonal antibodies targeting
interleukins, B cells and T cells.
The biologics used in inflammatory arthritis are geneti-
cally engineered proteins derived from human genes. They
inhibit specific components of the immune system which play
pivotal roles in driving or inhibiting inflammation in arthritis.
Unlike conventional drugs, that modify the immune system
as a whole, biologics affect specific components of the
immune system. Theoretically this targeted approach is both
more specific in its effects and causes fewer adverse events.
Introduction 113
However, in reality the complex interactions of cytokines and

the multiplicity of cytokine targets means it is difficult to
predict the effectiveness and toxicity of cytokine-based inter-
ventions such as biologics. Several strategies have been
explored to treat inflammatory diseases with cytokines. These
include neutralizing cytokines using soluble receptors or
monoclonal antibodies, receptor blockade, and the activation
of anti-inflammatory pathways by bioengineered versions of
immunoregulatory cytokines.
There are currently six different classes of biologics avail-
able for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1 Currently available biologic agents for the treatment of

inflammatory arthritis
Therapeutic Target disease(s)
Biologic type agent(s)
TNF-inhibitors Adalimumab RA/AS/PsA
Etanercept RA/AS/PsA
Infliximab RA/PsAa
Certolizumab RA/ASa/PsAa
Golimumab RA/AS/PsA
Interleukin-1 receptor Anakinra RAa
inhibition
B-cell inhibition Rituximab RA
T-cell inhibition Abatacept RA
Interleukin-6 inhibition Tocilizumab RA
Interleukin-12/-23 Ustekinumab PsAa
inhibition
RA Rheumatoid Arthritis, AS Ankylosing Spondylitis, PsA Psoriatic
Arthritis
a
Not currently approved by the National Institute for Health and
Care Excellence (NICE)
Each inhibits a different aspect of the immune driven

inflammatory pathway. These biologic classes comprise:
TNF-inhibitors, of which five biologics are currently
available
Interleukin-1 receptor inhibition, with one biologic cur-
rently available
B-cell inhibition, with one biologic currently available
T-cell inhibition, with one biologic currently available
Interleukin-6 inhibition, with one biologic currently
available
Interleukin-12/-23 inhibition, with one biologic currently
available
Most of the new biologics that followed TNF-inhibitors
are focused on patients who have failed these agents. It is
considered inappropriate to combine biologics and the
balance of evidence suggests there may be increased toxic-
ity without enhanced benefit from combination of
biologics.
Biologic Treatment Pathways
With the exception of Ustekinumab, all the available bio-

logics have been shown in clinical trials to effectively treat
RA. The initial agent of choice is usually a TNF-inhibitor.
The use of biologics in the UK is restricted by the National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to patients
who have failed two conventional DMARDs, including
methotrexate and have active disease defined as having a
DAS28 score >5.1 on two occasions 1 month apart [4]. The
figure below outlines the current biologic treatment para-
digm for RA in the UK (Fig. 7.1). There is growing evi-
dence to favour certain agents in specific clinical
circumstances. These issues will be discussed in more detail
in subsequent chapters.
Biologic Treatment Pathways 115
Anti-TNF or IL-6 inhibition or T-cell inhibition
Indication: Failure of 2 DMARDs (one is methotrexate)
Agent: Can be adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, golimumab or

certolizumab (anti-TNF) or tocilizumab (anti-IL-6) or abatacept
(CTLA4-Ig) depending on physician and patient preference. Given
with methotrexate unless contra-indicated (in which case
infliximab should not be used)
Anti-TNF or IL-6 inhibitor or T-cell

inhibitor failure/intolerance
B-cell inhibition
Agent: Rituximab. Given with methotrexate unless
contra-indicated
Rituximab
failure/intolerance/contra-
indication
Alternative anti-TNF lnterleukin-6 T-cell inhibition

agent inhibition Agent: Abatacept.
Agent: Adalimumab, Agent: Tocilizumab. Given with
etanercept, infliximab OR Given with OR methotrexate unless
or golimumab. Usually methotrexate unless contra-indicated.
given with contra-indicated.
methotrexate. If
methotrexate
intolerant infliximab
not recommended.
Figure 7.1 Current biologic treatment pathway for rheumatoid

arthritis in the UK (Figure reproduced with permission from Scott
[5] licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License)
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
Biologics are especially effective in early RA, particularly

when combined with methotrexate [6]. Currently, their
cost has restricted their use in this situation. Whether or
not this is correct is an issue for governments and health

care funders rather than for clinicians and patients. The
evidence for efficacy in early disease is strong but the evi-
dence for their being cost-effective in this situation is
controversial.
Psoriatic Arthritis
TNF inhibitors are effective in PsA. Their use is restricted

under NICE to patients with peripheral arthritis involving
three or more joints which are swollen and tender who have
failed at least two standard DMARDs. They improve both
the arthritis and the skin disease. Patients with psoriatic spon-
dyloarthritis in whom spinal disease is the dominant problem
should be treated as per patients with AS (see below). The
newer biologic agent, Ustekinumab has been shown to be
effective for PsA. Although it is approved by NICE for the
treatment of skin psoriasis it has not yet been recommended
for the treatment of PsA.
TNF inhibitors are effective in AS and improve the spinal

disease as well as any peripheral arthritis. They are indicated
in patients with a score of at least four units on the Bath
Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)
and at least 4 cm on a 10 cm spinal pain visual analogue scale.
Patients should also have failed to respond to conventional
treatment with two or more non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs taken sequentially. Patients should show a response to
anti-TNF therapy with a reduction of the BASDAI score to
50 % of the pre-treatment value or by two or more units and
reduced spinal pain on the VAS by 2 cm or more. There is
evidence that etanercept and adalimumab are more cost
effective than infliximab in AS, with the latter agent not
being recommended for routine use in the UK.
Health Economic Case for Using Biologics 117
Health Economic Case for Using Biologics

The biologics are both safe and effective treatments but they
are also very expensive. If cost did not enter the equation,
these agents would be the most likely first choice treatment
for most patients. However, whilst treatment with conven-
tional DMARD costs such as methotrexate is inexpensive,
the costs of biologics are far higher. No matter how good
these new treatments prove to be, their use is bound to be
restricted by costs.
On the other side of the equation is the high cost and dis-
advantages of RA for both the patient and for society as a
whole. The argument about when to use these new drugs and
their relative cost-effectiveness is complex. At present it is
thought that it is reasonably cost-effective to use them in
patients with active disease who have failed to respond to a
number of conventional DMARDs.
Decisions about the use of high cost treatments are based
on cost-utility analyses, which is a key pharmacoeconomic
issue. It estimates the ratio between the cost of a health-
related intervention, such as a new biologic, and its benefit in
terms of the number of years lived in full health by the ben-
eficiaries. It is a special case of a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Costs is measured in monetary units. However, benefits are
described in a way that lets health states considered less pref-
erable to full health to be given quantitative values. This is
usually as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incre-
mental cost-effectiveness ratio is the ratio between the differ-
ence in costs and the difference in benefits of two interventions.
A threshold value is often set by policy makers. In the UK the
threshold is about 2030,000 per QALY. Health interven-
tions that have an incremental cost of more than 30,000 per
additional QALY gained are likely to be rejected and an
intervention which has an incremental cost of less than or
equal to 30,000 per extra QALY gained is likely to be
accepted as cost-effective. In North America US$50,000 per
QALY is often suggested as a threshold for a cost-effective
intervention.
This seems simple and non-controversial. However, the

mechanisms for assessing the QALYs gained by using high
cost treatments like biologics in long-term diseases such as
RA are highly controversial. The same data is used by differ-
ent experts to produce highly different results. One particular
reason for these difficulties is that although the costs of a
drug are uniform the costs of treatment are not spread
equally between patients; most patients incur relatively low
costs but a small number of patients have very high costs. The
same is true of health benefits. As a consequence the issues
about access to biologics remain debatable.
References
1. Scott DL, Symmons DP, Coulton BL, Popert AJ. Long-term out-
come of treating rheumatoid arthritis: results after 20 years.
Lancet. 1987;1:110811.
2. Elliott MJ, Maini RN, Feldmann M, Kalden JR, Antoni C, Smolen
JS, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of chimeric
monoclonal antibody to tumour necrosis factor alpha (cA2) ver-
sus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 1994;344:110510.
3. Lipsky PE, van der Heijde DM, St Clair EW, Furst DE, Breedveld
FC, Kalden JR, et al. Infliximab and methotrexate in the treat-
ment of rheumatoid arthritis. Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in
Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group.
N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1594602.
4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Adalimumab,
etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthri-
tis. NICE Website. 2007. http://www.nice.org.uk/TA130. Accessed
20 Apr 2014.
5. Scott IC. Risk prediction in rheumatoid arthritis. Unpublished
thesis, Kings College London; 2014.
6. Breedveld FC, Weisman MH, Kavanaugh AF, Cohen SB, Pavelka
K, van Vollenhoven R, et al. The PREMIER study: a multicenter,
randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy
with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone
or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheuma-
toid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment.
Chapter 8
Anti-Tumour Necrosis
Factor-Alpha (TNF-)
Treatment
Abstract There are currently five TNF- inhibitors

available to treat inflammatory arthropathies. These can be
subdivided into first generation agents (comprising etaner-
cept, infliximab and adalimumab) and second generation
agents (comprising certolizumab and golimumab). In RA all
TNF- inhibitors are nationally approved for use in routine
clinical care. There is no evidence that one of these agents
is superior to another and practical and financial issues
determine which is chosen. In other forms of inflammatory
arthritis, in particular in AS, there is evidence that some
biologics may be less effective than others. Overall, there
is strong clinical trial evidence for their efficacy in inflam-
matory arthritis. Although relatively safe, TNF- inhibitors
have a broad range of potential adverse effects. The domi-
nant risk is an increased infection risk, particularly that of
latent tuberculosis reactivation. This chapter will provide
an overview of the available TNF- inhibitors, their mecha-
nisms of action, the evidence base for their efficacy and the
potential adverse events associated with them.
Keywords TNF- Etanercept Infliximab Adalimumab

Certolizumab Golimumab Side-Effects Tuberculosis

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_8,
120 Chapter 8. Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Treatment
Background
Early research in the 1980s and 1990s highlighted the
importance of cytokines in inflammatory arthritis. It
showed many different pro- and anti-inflammatory cyto-
kines were over-expressed in the rheumatoid synovium.
Although there was debate about whether IL-1 was the
major driver in inflammatory arthritis, research suggested
that TNF- might have a central role. The proof of principle
for inhibiting this cytokine came from an open label clinical
study in which patients with RA received a single infusion
of a TNF- inhibitor. This showed a rapid response, includ-
ing an early fall in CRP levels [1]. However, the anti-
inflammatory effect lasted only 612 weeks. It was followed
by a return of active disease. As a result patients were
retreated with further infusions and they showed responses
of a similar magnitude and duration. The scene was set for
a major clinical development programme. One concern was
that the TNF- inhibitor, which included mouse protein,
might lose efficacy due to immunogenicity. Up to 60 % of
Infliximab treated patients develop anti-drug antibodies
[2]. This was solved by giving methotrexate as an additional
treatment. This has become a standard approach with these
biologics.
There are currently five TNF- inhibitors available to treat
inflammatory arthropathies (Table 8.1). These can be subdi-
vided into first generation agents (comprising etanercept,
infliximab and adalimumab) and second generation agents
(comprising certolizumab and golimumab). In RA all TNF-
inhibitors are nationally approved for use in routine clinical
care. There is no evidence that one of these agents is superior
to another, and practical and financial issues determine which
is chosen. In other forms of inflammatory arthritis, in particu-
lar in AS, there is evidence that some biologics may be less
effective than others.
Table 8.1 Currently available TNF- inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis
TNF- inhibitor Site of action Dosing schedule Methotrexate
Infliximab Binds soluble and transmembrane TNF- and IV administration Essential to
inhibits binding of TNF- to TNF receptors every 48 weeks co-prescribe
Etanercept Soluble TNF-receptor fusion protein that binds Subcutaneous once Optional to
TNF- and TNF- preventing them from interacting or twice weekly co-prescribe
with their receptors
Adalimumab Binds soluble and transmembrane TNF- and Subcutaneous Optional to
inhibits binding of TNF- to TNF receptors fortnightly co-prescribe
Certolizumab Binds soluble and transmembrane TNF- and Subcutaneous Optional to
inhibits binding of TNF- to TNF receptors fortnightly co-prescribe
Golimumab Binds soluble and transmembrane TNF- and Subcutaneously Optional to
inhibits binding of TNF- to TNF receptors monthly co-prescribe
Background
121
Etanercept
Etanercept is a soluble TNF-receptor fusion protein. It com-
prises two dimers. Each dimer has an extracellular, ligand-
binding portion of the higher-affinity type 2 TNF receptor
(p75) which is linked to the Fc portion of human IgG1. This
fusion protein binds to both TNF- and TNF- and prevents
them from interacting with their receptors. It is given by sub-
cutaneous administration at a dose of 25 mg twice a week or
50 mg once a week. This dosing reflects its half-life of approx-
imately 4 days. Interestingly etanercept has never received a
license for inflammatory bowel disease because of lack of
efficacy in clinical trials [3].
Infliximab
Infliximab is a chimeric IgG1 antiTNF- antibody in which
the antigen-binding region is derived from a mouse antibody
and the constant region from a human antibody. It binds to
soluble and membrane bound TNF- with high affinity. This
binding impairs the binding of TNF- to its receptor. Infliximab
also kills cells that express TNF- through antibody- depen-
dent and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. There are con-
siderable differences between patients in the pharmacokinetics
of infliximab. The intravenous dosing method of infliximab
results in much greater initial peak concentrations along with
higher peak to trough ratios when compared to other anti-
TNF agents [4]. Trough concentrations, seen 8 weeks after
intravenous administration of 3 mg/kg of infliximab vary
enormously between patients. Shortening the interval between
doses may be more effective in increasing the trough levels
than increasing the dose. In RA patients the dose given is
3 mg/kg every 8 weeks. In PsA and AS the dose is 5 mg/kg
every 8 weeks. Some patients have higher doses, and in certain
circumstances the intervals between doses can be reduced.
Golimumab 123
Adalimumab
This is a recombinant human IgG1 monoclonal antibody. It
binds human TNF- with a high affinity, and as a conse-
quence inhibits this cytokine binding to its receptors. It also
lyses cells that express TNF-a on their surface. It is given by
subcutaneous injection and is then absorbed slowly. Peak
concentrations are achieved after 120 h. Although there are
wide variations between patients, it is given fortnightly at a
dose of 40 mg.
Certolizumab
Certolizumab pegol is a recombinant humanised Fab frag-
ment (which is the antigen-binding domain) of a TNF-
antibody, which has been coupled to polyethylene glycol
(PEG). This coupling prolongs its plasma half-life to
approximately 2 weeks. It binds and neutralises mem-
brane-bound and soluble human TNF-. It is the only
TNF- inhibitor without an Fc region. It is given by subcu-
taneous injection with an initial loading dose of 400 mg
every 2 weeks for 6 weeks, followed by 200 mg once
fortnightly.
Golimumab
Golimumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody against
TNF-, which is produced in a transgenic mouse. It targets
and neutralises both soluble and membrane bound TNF-. It
has a variable half-life of between 7 and 20 days. It is given as
a monthly subcutaneous injection at dose of 50 mg, which can
be increased to 100 mg a month if the patients body-weight
is more than 100 kg.
Indications
TNF- inhibitors should be initiated when patients continue

to have active RA (defined as a DAS28 score of >5.1 on two
occasions at least 1 month apart) after an adequate trial of
effective DMARDs (defined as 6 months of treatment with
at least 2 DMARDs, one of which must be methotrexate).
Unless contra-indicated they are given with methotrexate,
which increases efficacy and helps to prevent the formation
of anti-biologic antibodies. Their use as the first line for the
treatment of RA should at present be limited to research
studies.
Psoriatic Arthritis
As with RA, TNF- inhibitors in PsA are restricted to

patients who continue to have active disease despite
DMARD therapy. Current national guidelines recommend
their use in patients with active PsA (defined as a tender and
swollen joint count of at least 3) despite treatment with two
DMARDs (given for 6 months, one of which is
methotrexate).
TNF- inhibitors are of proven efficacy in AS. They are used

in patients who have not responded to treatment with
NSAIDs. NSAID failure is defined as an inability of NSAID
drugs taken sequentially at maximum tolerated doses for 4
weeks to control symptoms. Patients require active disease
with a BASDAI score of at least four units and a spinal pain
VAS of at least 4 cm.
Clinical Effects 125
Clinical Effects
TNF- inhibitors given in adequate doses produce major

improvements in symptoms, signs, and laboratory measures.
This improvement occurs within 12 weeks of starting treat-
ment. Switching from one TNF- inhibitor to another is well
documented, with supporting evidence from clinical trials.
Individually important responses should occur within 812
weeks. Provided there is some evidence of benefit, treatment
should be continued. If patients show no response therapy
should be altered. In patients with an incomplete response,
there is some evidence that increasing the dose or reducing
dosing intervals may provide additional benefit, as may the
addition or substitution of other DMARDs.
A systematic review of the efficacy of TNF- inhibitors in
RA showed the number needed to treat was 5 to obtain an
ACR20 response and 7 to obtain an ACR70 response
16
14
Number needed to treat
Recommended
12
Higher dose
10 Lower dose
8
6
4
2
0
ACR20 ACR50 ACR70
Figure 8.1 Number needed to treat for ACR20 to ACR70 responses

with TNF- inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis (Figure adapted using
data reported by Alonso-Ruiz et al. [5])
12
10
6 26 weeks
52 weeks
4 104 weeks
0
Methotrexate Adalimumab Methotrexate +
adalimumab
Figure 8.2 Mean changes from baseline in X-Ray (sharp) scores

over 104 weeks in the PREMIER study evaluating methotrexate
monotherapy, adalimumab monotherapy or double therapy
with both medications (Figure adapted using data reported by
Breedveld et al. [6])
(Fig. 8.1) [5]. Clinical features like joint counts, disability and
joint damage were all improved or progressed less with
TNF- inhibitor use. There was no reason to prefer one
TNF- inhibitor over another. There was limited evidence
that giving lower or higher doses changes the effect of biolog-
ics, though lower doses reduced the chance of developing an
ACR70 response.
There is growing evidence that TNF- inhibitors slow
radiographic progression in RA (Fig. 8.2) [6]. In some
patients they completely halt it. The evidence is stronger in
early disease. It is also stronger with combined therapy
using methotrexate with a biologic. The relationship
between clinical and radiological response is incomplete.
However, the long term implications of slowing radiologi-
cal damage are uncertain, and benefits on radiological
damage alone should not influence clinical decision
making.
Safety and Adverse Effects 127
Psoriatic Arthritis
Infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab have all been effec-

tive in clinical trials. A meta-analysis in 2008 evaluated 6
RCTs in which these TNF- inhibitors had been used [7]. Nine
hundred and eighty two patients were enrolled. All three anti-
TNF agents were significantly more effective at treating PsA
compared with placebo. Patients treated with biologics were 4
times more likely to attain an ACR20 response, 10 times more
likely to attain ACR50 response and 17 times more likely to
attain an ACR70 response when compared with placebo.
The GO-REVEAL study showed the efficacy of golim-
umab in treating PsA [8]. After 14 weeks of treatment in this
RCT 51 % of patients receiving 50 mg of golimumab once
monthly and 45 % of patients receiving 100 mg of golimumab
once monthly attained an ACR 20 response compared with
9 % of patients in the placebo group (p < 0.001).
These agents have the additional important benefit of
being able to effectively treat the skin disease concurrently
with joint symptoms and signs.
The TNF- inhibitors infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab

have proven efficacy for the treatment of AS. A systematic
review and meta-analysis of 8 RCTs found that treatment
with TNF- inhibitors provided standardized mean differ-
ences (95 % CI) of 0.9 (1.07, 0.73) for pain measured by
spinal pain VAS, and 1.25 (1.51, 0.98) for disease activity
measured by the BASDAI [9].
Safety and Adverse Effects
Biologics Registries
Much data exists on the safety of TNF- inhibitors. Several

international biologic registries have been compiled, which
have examined the adverse effects of these agents in large
numbers of RA patients receiving biologics compared with

matched controls not receiving biologics. These comprise the
British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register
(BSRBR; United Kingdom), the Rheumatoid Arthritis-
Observation of Biologic Therapy Register (RABBIT;
Germany) and the Spanish Registry of Adverse Events of
Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases (BIOBADASER;
Spain). The majority of data are on first-generation agents
with limited information on second-line agents. There is how-
ever little evidence to suggest they have significantly differ-
ent complication rates.
Local Injection Site Reactions
Local reactions such as minor redness and itching at the

injection site are common with subcutaneously administered
biologics. They last a few days.
Hypersensitivity Responses
Minor symptoms such as headache and nausea are common
in patients during infliximab infusions. Symptoms suggesting
an immediate hypersensitivity response with infliximab
infusions, such as urticaria, are uncommon but well described;
serious anaphylaxis is rare. Antihistamines, steroids and
adrenaline should be available while infusions are being
given, though they are rarely needed.
Infections
Serious and opportunistic infections occur in patients receiv-

ing TNF- inhibitors. Examples of such infections include
septic arthritis, infected prostheses, acute abscesses and
osteomyelitis. Until recently it was unclear if the incidence of
these infections on TNF- inhibitors exceeded that of
patients with severe RA, who are twice as likely to develop

serious infection compared with the general population. The
biologic registries have however indicated that TNF- inhibi-
tor use is associated with an approximate doubling in the risk
of serious infection. This risk is especially prominent in the
first 6 months of treatment. Analysis of data from the
BSRBR found that the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for seri-
ous infections on TNF- inhibitors compared with standard
DMARDs was 1.2 (95 % confidence interval 1.1, 1.5); in the
first 6 months of treatment this was higher at 1.8 (95 % con-
fidence interval 1.3, 2.6) [10]. If serious infections develop
then these agents should be withheld until it has resolved as
there is some evidence that they worsen infection if
continued.
Tuberculosis is a particular concern. TNF- is integral in
maintaining the integrity of formed TB granulomas. There is
both an increased susceptibility to primary tuberculosis and,
more importantly, reactivation of latent tuberculosis.
Screening patients for tuberculosis reduces the risk of acti-
vating tuberculosis and it is recommended that all patients
should be evaluated for the possibility of latent tuberculosis.
This evaluation should include a detailed history and exami-
nation, together with screening tests, such as skin tests/
interferon-gamma release assays and chest radiography,
depending on current national recommendations. Treatment
for the possibility of latent tuberculosis should be considered
if patients may be at risk. Some experts consider TNF-
inhibitors may be started as soon as anti-tuberculosis chemo-
therapy is started, although there is debate on the best timing.
Not all TNF- inhibitors carry the same risk of TB with the
risk being substantially higher with infliximab and adalim-
umab than etanercept [11]. Additionally the onset of TB
development varies between agents with TB infection mani-
festing in the early stages of treatment with infliximab but
occurring relatively evenly throughout the period of etaner-
cept treatment. The risk with the second generation TNF-
inhibitors is currently unclear due to limited experience with
these newer agents.
Demyelinating-like Disorders
Demyelinating-like disorders of both the peripheral and cen-

tral nervous systems alongside optic neuritis have been reported
in patients receiving TNF- inhibitors. Cases of peripheral
nerve demyelination such as Guillain-Barr syndrome and
chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy have
been reported. In most instances withdrawal of the offending
drug resulted in slow symptom improvement however a minor-
ity of individuals never achieved full symptom resolution. Both
exacerbations of previously quiescent multiple sclerosis and
new-onset demyelinating diseases have been reported. These
agents should be stopped if a demyelinating-like disorder or
optic neuritis occurs and patients with a history of definite mul-
tiple sclerosis should not receive TNF- inhibitors.
Haematological Disorders
A few cases of pancytopenia and aplastic anaemia have been

reported. If these problems occur, treatment should be
stopped and patients evaluated for underlying diseases or
other causative drugs. No monitoring is currently
recommended as these are rare events.
Heart Failure
Although heart failure is associated with high levels of TNF-

, several clinical trials examining infliximab and etanercept
as treatments for heart failure found a trend towards worsen-
ing cardiac congestion in patients receiving these biologics
[12, 13]. They were however used in higher doses than are
routinely prescribed in RA patients. For this reason current
guidelines recommend anti-TNF therapy should be used with
caution in patients with mild heart failure (defined as class I
or II New York Heart Association heart failure) and avoided
in those with significant heart failure (defined as class III or
IV New York Heart Association heart failure). If cardiac fail-
ure develops or worsens with treatment then anti-TNF ther-
apy should be withdrawn.
Malignancy
There is no definitive evidence that anti-TNF treatments

increase the risk of either lymphoproliferative disorders or
solid malignancies. Although lymphoma has been reported it
remains uncertain whether this is a causal relationship
because the incidence of lymphoma is increased in patients
with RA irrespective of treatments. Additionally the types of
lymphoma in RA patients and those reported in patients
given TNF- inhibitors are similar. There is however evidence
for an increased risk of skin cancers in patients treated with
anti-TNF [14]. There is a paucity of available data on cancer
recurrence in patients in remission from previous malignan-
cies receiving TNF- inhibitors however caution in using
these agents is advisable due to the role of TNF- in immune
surveillance for cancer.
Auto-immune Disorders
The auto-antibodies, anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) and dou-

ble stranded DNA antibody (dsDNA) are reported to occur
relatively often in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy. ANA
is estimated to occur in up to 52 % of RA patients. These are
commoner with infliximab. The occurrence of clinically overt
drug-induced lupus or vasculitis is however rare. In patients
who develop anti-TNF related lupus the clinical features dif-
fer from classical drug-induced lupus with higher rates of
cerebral and renal involvement that is similar to mild idio-
pathic SLE. Withdrawal of the agent usually results in symp-
tom resolution although steroids or alternative
immunosuppressives are occasionally required.
Interstitial Lung Disease
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) has been reported to occur

with all first generation TNF- inhibitors. It is however diffi-
cult to establish a causative relationship in RA patients
because ILD is a well recognised extra-articular manifesta-
tion of RA. Current recommendations are that patients with
known ILD should receive close lung function monitoring

and if worsening or new ILD features develop consideration
should be given to stopping therapy [15].
Psoriasis
Although anti-TNF is used to treat psoriasis there has

emerged a significant number of cases of de-novo psoriasis
developing in patients receiving all first-generation agents.
Stopping the TNF- inhibitor often improves the skin dis-
ease, although skin specific therapies may be needed.
Immune Responses to TNF- Inhibitors

Patients may develop antibiologic antibodies. This is relevant
in those receiving infliximab where such antibodies may
accelerate its clearance, increase the risk of infusion reactions
and reduce responses. Higher doses of infliximab and con-
comitant methotrexate administration reduce the occurrence
of human anti-chimeric antibody responses [16]. The experi-
ence with adalimumab reveals lower rates of immunogenic-
ity, but with immunogenicity responses correlating to reduced
efficacy [17]. Antibodies to other anti-TNF agents can also
occur however their clinical significance is uncertain.
Switching Anti-TNF Agents in Cases

of Primary or Secondary Failure
A substantial proportion of patients fail to respond to anti-
TNF therapy. Up to one third of patients discontinue anti-
TNF therapy within 1 year due to insufficient responses
(termed primary failure) or a loss of efficacy (termed second-
ary failure). In such cases current guidance suggests that
rituximab should be initiated as a second line therapy.
However in cases of rituximab failure or contra-indication it
References 133
is reasonable to try an alternative anti-TNF agent. Studies

have shown that clinical improvements following the switch
to a second TNF- inhibitor are similar to those seen in RA
patients receiving their first anti-TNF agent. Clinical responses
are however diminished in individuals needing a third anti-
TNF drug. Responses are also superior in cases of secondary
compared with primary failure, which suggests the cytokine
pathways driving RA differ between individuals [18].
References
1. Elliott MJ, Maini RN, Feldmann M, Kalden JR, Antoni C,
Smolen JS, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of
chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumour necrosis factor alpha
(cA2) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 1994;344:
110510.
2. Maini R, St Clair EW, Breedveld F, Furst D, Kalden J, Weisman M,
et al. Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha
monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis
patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised
phase III trial. ATTRACT Study Group. Lancet. 1999;354:
19329.
3. Sandborn WJ, Hanauer SB, Katz S, Safdi M, Wolf DG, Baerg RD,
et al. Etanercept for active Crohns disease: a randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Gastroenterology.
2001;121:108894.
4. Nestorov I. Clinical pharmacokinetics of tumor necrosis factor
antagonists. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2005;74:138.
5. Alonso-Ruiz A, Pijoan JI, Ansuategui E, Urkaregi A, Calabozo
M, Quintana A. Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid
arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and
safety. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:52.
6. Breedveld FC, Weisman MH, Kavanaugh AF, Cohen SB,
Pavelka K, van Vollenhoven R, et al. The PREMIER study: a
multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combina-
tion therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus metho-
trexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early,
aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous
methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2637.
7. Saad AA, Symmons DP, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Risks and
benefits of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors in the manage-
ment of psoriatic arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of
randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:88390.
8. Kavanaugh A, van der Heijde D, McInnes IB, Mease P,
Krueger GG, Gladman DD, et al. Golimumab in psoriatic
arthritis: one-year clinical efficacy, radiographic, and safety
results from a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
9. Escalas C, Trijau S, Dougados M. Evaluation of the treatment
effect of NSAIDs/TNF blockers according to different domains
in ankylosing spondylitis: results of a meta-analysis.
10. Galloway JB, Hyrich KL, Mercer LK, Dixon WG, Fu B,
Ustianowski AP, et al. Anti-TNF therapy is associated with an
increased risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid
arthritis especially in the first 6 months of treatment: updated
results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics
Register with special emphasis on risks in the elderly.
11. Dixon WG, Hyrich KL, Watson KD, Lunt M, Galloway J,
Ustianowski A, et al. Drug-specific risk of tuberculosis in patients
with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF therapy: results
from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register
(BSRBR). Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:5228.
12. Bozkurt B, Torre-Amione G, Warren MS, Whitmore J, Soran OZ,
Feldman AM, et al. Results of targeted anti-tumor necrosis
factor therapy with etanercept (ENBREL) in patients with
advanced heart failure. Circulation. 2001;103:10447.
13. Chung ES, Packer M, Lo KH, Fasanmade AA, Willerson JT,
Anti TNFTACHFI. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-
controlled, pilot trial of infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal
antibody to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, in patients with moder-
ate-to-severe heart failure: results of the anti-TNF Therapy
Against Congestive Heart Failure (ATTACH) trial. Circulation.
2003;107:313340.
14. Mariette X, Reynolds AV, Emery P. Updated meta-analysis of
non-melanoma skin cancer rates reported from prospective
observational studies in patients treated with tumour necrosis
factor inhibitors. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:e2.
References 135
15. Jani M, Hirani N, Matteson EL, Dixon WG. The safety of

biologic therapies in RA-associated interstitial lung disease. Nat
Rev Rheumatol. 2014;10:28494.
16. Maini RN, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Davis D,
Macfarlane JD, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of multiple intrave-
nous infusions of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal
antibody combined with low-dose weekly methotrexate in
rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41:155263.
17. Bartelds GM, Wijbrandts CA, Nurmohamed MT, Stapel S,
Lems WF, Aarden L, et al. Clinical response to adalimumab:
relationship to anti-adalimumab antibodies and serum adalim-
umab concentrations in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis.
2007;66:9216.
18. Emery P, Gottenberg JE, Rubbert-Roth A, Sarzi-Puttini P,
Choquette D, Martnez Taboada VM et al. Rituximab versus an
alternative TNF inhibitor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
who failed to respond to a single previous TNF inhibitor:
SWITCH-RA, a global, observational, comparative effective-
ness study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; [Epub ahead of print].
Chapter 9
B-Cell Inhibition and Other
Biologics
Abstract Most emphasis has been placed on the use of tumour

necrosis factor inhibitors as the first line biologic agents in inflam-
matory arthritis patients not responding to DMARD therapy.
There are, however, many other biological agents that are effec-
tive in DMARD-refractory individuals. Currently five other types
of biologics are licensed for the management of inflammatory
arthritis. Each drug inhibits a separate pathway involved in arthri-
tis. These other biologics, viewed from the perspective of their
mechanisms of action, comprise B-cell inhibition using Rituximab,
T-cell modulation using Abatacept, interleukin-6 inhibition using
Tocilizumab, interleukin-1 inhibition using Anakinra, and interleu-
kin-12/-23 inhibition using Ustekinumab. This chapter will provide
an overview of the mechanisms of action, clinical indications, side-
effects and evidence base for each of these agents.
Keywords Biologics Cytokines Rituximab Abatacept

Tocilizumab Anakinra Ustekinumab
Introduction
Although most emphasis has been placed on tumour necrosis
factor inhibitors, there are many other biological agents that
are effective in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Currently

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_9,
138 Chapter 9. B-Cell Inhibition and Other Biologics
five other types of biologics are licensed for the management

of inflammatory arthritis. Each drug inhibits a separate path-
way involved in arthritis.
Two of these biologics affect cellular pathways, which
involve either B-cells or T-cells. Three of them inhibit differ-
ent cytokines. Four are effective in RA and one is effective in
PsA. These other biologics, viewed from the perspective of
their mechanisms of action, comprise:
B-cell inhibition: Rituximab, which is effective in RA and
is given by intravenous infusions.
T-cell modulation: Abatacept, which is effective in RA and
can be given by either intravenous infusion or subcutane-
ous injections.
Interleukin-6 (Il-6) inhibition: Tocilizumab, which is effec-
tive in RA and can be given by either intravenous infusion
or subcutaneous injections.
Interleukin-1 (Il-1) receptor antagonist: Anakinra, which can
be given in RA but has insufficient efficacy to justify its
widespread use. Interestingly it is more effective in acute
gout and a range of rarer disorders including familial fevers.
Interleukin-12/-23 (Il-12/-23) antagonist- Ustekinumab
Rituximab
Background
Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody. It depletes the

B-cell population by targeting cells bearing the CD20 surface
marker [1]. This binding interferes with the activation and
differentiation of B cells. It was introduced for the treatment
of lymphomas but was subsequently found to be effective in
RA. The effect on B-cells suggests that the prevailing view of
RA as a predominantly T-cell mediated disease is doubtful.
B Cells in RA
The mechanism or mechanisms by which B cell depletion
improves RA are unclear [2]. B cells have potentially important
Rituximab 139
roles in several aspects of RA pathogenesis. Firstly they may act

as antigen-presenting cells providing co-stimulatory signals for
T cell activation and expansion. Secondly they are involved in
the production of rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrulli-
nated peptide antibodies, which lead to immune complex for-
mation and complement activation. These autoantibodies are
associated with more severe disease phenotypes. Finally they
can be involved in the production of pro-inflammatory cyto-
kines such as TNF and IL-6. These cytokines drive the chronic
inflammatory process which characterise active RA.
Mechanism of Action
Rituximab can deplete C20+ B cells by several mechanisms.

These include inducing CD20+ B cell lysis by recruiting com-
ponents of the innate immune system such as macrophages,
inducing apoptosis of CD20+ B cells and activating the com-
plement cascade leading to the formation of membrane
attack complexes that target CD20+ B cells [2].
Clinical Indications
Rituximab is given in combination with methotrexate to treat

severely active RA. Its use is currently focussed on patients
who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to stan-
dard DMARDs and to one TNF-inhibitor.
Clinical Efficacy
A number of clinical trials have been completed, which all show

rituximab reduces joint counts, improves disability and limits joint
damage in patients with active RA. It is effective in both treat-
ment naive patients and those refractory to previous DMARDs
and TNF-inhibitors. Its use, however, is currently restricted to
those with active RA who have failed anti-TNF treatment.
One systematic review has combined findings from three
trials, which enrolled 938 patients with active RA [3]. They
4
Relative risk
0
ACR20 ACR50 ACR70 Adverse Serious
events adverse
events
Figure 9.1 Effect of rituximab in active RA patients compared to

methotrexate treated controls (Based on systematic review by Lee
et al. [3]. Figure adapted using data reported by Lee et al. [3])
were all resistant or intolerant to DMARDs or TNF-

inhibitors. They were followed up for 612 months. Patients
receiving rituximab and methotrexate had substantially
greater ACR responder rates without more toxicity. These
results are summarised in Fig. 9.1
Although it is used in seropositive and seronegative RA
patients, the efficacy of rituximab appears to be superior in
seropositive individuals. A meta-analysis of four clinical trials
identified modest but important clinical benefits in patients
who are seropositive for rheumatoid factor and also for anti-
cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies [4]. The reduction at 6
months in DAS28 scores was 0.35 units higher in seropositive
patients. The effects of rituximab also mirror rheumatoid fac-
tor levels. Serum autoantibody levels fall in association with
clinical responses.
Rituximab 141
Initial and Repeat Courses
A course of rituximab comprises two 1 g intravenous infu-

sions 2 weeks apart given alongside intravenous methylpred-
nisolone. It is given with methotrexate, which potentiates its
efficacy and durability. A single course of treatment results in
a near total peripheral blood B cell population depletion.
This usually persists for 69 months. CD20 is expressed on
only pre-B cells and mature B cells; it is not expressed on
stem cells or plasma cells. Therefore B cell repopulation
occurs after this time point by naive B cells.
In patients who respond further infusions can be given at
intervals of at least 6 months. The optimal time to give
repeated infusions is not certain. Currently practiced regi-
mens comprise:
1. Regular re-treatment: every 6-months
2. Treat-to-target: re-treat every 6 months until remission is
achieved
3. Re-treatment on flare: an approach undertaken in early
clinical trials
Although trial data indicates a treatment-to-target strat-
egy may be best, limited long-term safety data in RA indi-
cates the need for caution with regular re-treatment.
Adverse Reactions
Most adverse effects are infusion-related reactions, and are

generally mild to moderate. Reactions to the first infusion
such as hypotension and fever are common, occurring in one
third of patients. They are reduced by corticosteroid prophy-
laxis with intravenous methylprednisolone. Such reactions
are usually reversed by reducing or interrupting the infusion
alongside therapeutic intervention with paracetamol and
antihistamines. They are less common with repeated courses.
Severe infusion reactions leading to drug discontinuation are
rare occurring in less than one percent of patients.
A range of other adverse events may occur [5], and these

have been studied in a cohort of 3,194 RA patients who had
received up to 17 rituximab courses over 9.5 years. Rituximab
remained well tolerated over time and multiple courses.
There was no indication of an increased safety risk with ritux-
imab over time.
Infection
There is a slightly increased rate of infection in RA patients

receiving rituximab. Data from the biologics registries indi-
cates that serious infections are greatest in the first few
months following treatment. As with all biologics rituximab
should be avoided in patients with an active infection or
those who are severely immunocompromised.
Unlike anti-TNF therapy the risk of TB does not appear
increased and there is no current evidence indicating the need
to screen RA patients for TB prior to rituximab treatment.
Hepatitis B virus reactivation has been well documented in
oncology patients, but not RA patients treated with rituximab.
In patients with serological evidence of previous or current
hepatitis B infection the risk-benefit profile should be fully
discussed. If rituximab is deemed necessary then patient man-
agement should be undertaken in consultation with a gastro-
enterologist. Prophylactic treatment against hepatitis B
reactivation with lamivudine may be considered. Current
practice is to pre-screen patients for previous/current hepatitis
B infection. The risk of hepatitis C virus is unclear although
there are reports of severe infusion reactions in hepatitis C
infected patients. It is recommended that patients should be
screened for risk factors for hepatitis C pre-treatment.
To date a few cases of progressive multifocal leukoenceph-
alopathy have been reported in RA patients. Most had long-
standing RA with previous use of multiple immunosuppressive
agents. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is caused
by reactivation of the common JC virus. It occurs in immuno-
compromised individuals, resulting in myelin loss within the
Tocilizumab 143
nervous system. Symptoms are protean and depend upon the

location and degree of myelin loss. They include personality
changes, visual disturbances and weakness. Although the risk
is very small (currently estimated at 1 in 20,000) its poor prog-
nosis and lack of specific treatment means that patients
should receive pre-treatment counselling regarding it.
Anti-biologic Antibodies
Human anti-chimeric antibodies are detected in about 10 %

of patients and may be associated with worse infusion or
allergic reactions and failure to deplete B-cells after subse-
quent courses.
Tocilizumab
Background
IL-6 is an important pro-inflammatory cytokine in RA. It pro-

motes inflammation through the expansion and activation of T
cells, differentiation of B cells and induction of acute-phase
reactants by hepatocytes. IL-6 signal transduction is mediated
by membrane-bound and soluble receptors [6]. Tocilizumab is
at present the only available IL-6 inhibitor for the treatment of
inflammatory arthritis. It is a recombinant humanised anti-
human IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody of the IgG1 sub-
class. It binds to both membrane-bound and soluble IL-6
receptors, preventing their activation by IL-6.
Clinical Use
Tocilizumab is mainly used in patients with active RA who

have failed treatment with standard DMARDs. It is usually
given in combination with methotrexate. However it can be
given as a monotherapy without methotrexate.
Dosing
The first approach to treatment was intravenously dosing

adjusted for body weight given every 4 weeks. Dosing can be
adjusted for problems such as deranged liver function tests,
neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. More recently it has
become available as weekly subcutaneous injections which
are self-administered by patients. These are likely to become
the most widely used treatment modality with tocilizumab.
Clinical Efficacy
Several systematic reviews have assessed the effectiveness of

tocilizumab in RA. One review described experience in eight
clinical trials involving 3,334 patients [7]. The other described
experience in 12 trials involving 5,894 patients [8]. Their con-
clusions are similar. They show that tocilizumab increased the
number of patients achieving ACR50 responses, and other
ACR responses, there were more remissions with tocili-
zumab, including DAS28 remissions, and more patients
achieved clinically important reductions in disability. These
benefits are shown in Fig. 9.2.
Tocilizumab is beneficial in patients who have failed to
respond to methotrexate and to tumour necrosis factor
inhibitors. Although it is usually given with methotrexate,
tocilizumab is also effective as monotherapy. Most research
has focussed on using intravenous infusions of tocilizumab.
However, it is now available for subcutaneous administration
and is also effective when given by this route [9].
Adverse Events
The overall safety profile of Tocilizumab is acceptable. Most
adverse events are mild to moderate in severity. Common
adverse events with tocilizumab include infection, often naso-
pharyngitis, followed by gastrointestinal disturbance,
stomatitis, rash, and headache.
Tocilizumab 145
Control Tocilzumab
600
Per 1,000 patients
400
200
0
ACR50 Remission Improved
improvements function
Figure 9.2 Key benefit of tocilizumab in clinical trials (Based on

systematic review by Singh et al. [7]. Figure adapted using data
reported by Singh et al. [7])
Infusion and Hypersensitivity Reactions
Infusion reactions may occur when intravenous tocilizumab

is used. They include hypertension, which is usually seen dur-
ing the infusion, headache, pruritis or rash. Hypersensitivity
reactions are very rare.
Infection
As with all biologics the risk of infection is slightly increased.

The incidence of serious infections is low; the most commonly
reported comprising pneumonia and cellulitis. The risk of
tuberculosis also appears to be increased. Current guidance
recommends that as with TNF inhibitors patients should be
screened for tuberculosis and those with latent infection
administered chemoprophylaxis prior to treatment initiation.
Liver Function Test Abnormalities
Abnormalities of liver function tests are common in patients

receiving tocilizumab, particularly in patients also receiving
methotrexate. Most resolve spontaneously or with treatment
modification such as dose reduction.
Elevated Lipids
Lipid elevations are commonly seen with up to one quarter

of patients in clinical trials experiencing significant sustained
total cholesterol elevations. These changes generally occur
around treatment initiation and stabilise with time. Their
impact on cardiovascular risk is unclear as high-density lipo-
protein also increases with treatment and reducing systemic
inflammation has a beneficial effect on atherogenesis. Current
guidance recommends that standard guidelines for lipid
management should be followed.
Neutropenia and Thrombocytopenia

IL-6 plays an important role in the recruitment of neutrophils
from bone marrow stores into the peripheral blood.
Tocilizumab thus results in an immediate but short-lived,
dose dependent neutropenia. Serious neutropenia is uncom-
mon. There is no clear relationship between neutropenia and
serious infections. Blood count monitoring is recommended
and neutropenia may be managed by a dose reduction.
Thrombocytopenia has been reported but is less common
than neutropenia. It is not associated with an increased
bleeding risk. As with neutropenia a dose reduction may be
necessary.
Anti-biologic Antibodies
Antibodies to tocilizumab can occur. They are rarer than with

anti-TNF agents. Their precise clinical relevance is unknown.
Abatacept 147
Abatacept
Background
T cells, in particular CD4+ T cells, have well established roles

in RA pathogenesis. T cells require two stimulatory signals to
become activated. The primarily stimulatory signal is gener-
ated from the binding of the T cell receptor to MHC com-
plexes containing a relevant antigen. The secondary
co-stimulatory signal involves the binding of CD28 on the T
cell to CD80 or CD86 on the antigen presenting cell.
Abatacept is a fusion protein comprising an immunoglobulin
fused to the extracellular domain of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte
antigen 4 (CTLA-4). CTLA-4 is a molecule that binds with a
high affinity to the CD80/86 ligand on antigen presenting cells.
The abatacept molecule therefore blocks the interaction
between the CD80/86 ligand on the antigen presenting cell and
the CD28 ligand on the T cell, preventing T cell activation. This
results in reduced T-cell proliferation and cytokine production.
T cell inhibition is a less focused form of immune modulating
therapy than specific anti-cytokine agents; it results in a reduc-
tion of the cytokines TNF-, IL-1 and IL-6. It also has implica-
tions on B cell activation.
Clinical Use
Abatacept, in combination with methotrexate, is used in patients

with severely active RA who have responded inadequately to
disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs including methotrexate.
Dosing
Abatacept was initially only available as an intravenous infu-

sion. The exact dose depends on patients weight. Maintenance
intravenous dosing is needed every 4 weeks. More recently sub-
cutaneous abatacept has become available [10] and this is given
weekly. It is likely to be the main way of giving abatacept.
Abatacept
Certolizumab
Golimumab
Adalimumab
Etanercept
Infliximab
Placebo
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Reductions in HAQ score over 6 months
Figure 9.3 Comparable reductions in disability over 6 months with

abatacept and other biologics (Based on systematic review by
Maxwell and Singh [11]. Figure adapted using data reported by
Maxwell and Singh [11])
Clinical Efficacy
Abatacept reduces disease activity, improves function and

reduces erosive damage. Long-term extension data from
clinical trials shows it retains effectiveness and protects
against erosions for 5 years or longer.
An initial systematic review combined results from seven
trials that involved 2,908 patients with RA [11]. It confirmed
the overall clinical efficacy of abatacept and showed five
patients needed to be treated to achieve an ACR50 response.
A subsequent systematic review compared it with other bio-
logics, showing broadly comparable benefits to TNF inhibi-
tors [12]. An example of abatacepts effect on functional
improvement is shown in Fig. 9.3
Ustekinumab 149
Adverse Reactions
There is extensive safety data for abatacept based on trials

and observational studies of over 4,500 patients treated for
over 12,000 years [13]. Infections are the main safety risk but
their frequency does not increase over time. Overall the
safety profile of abatacept is reassuring with low rates of seri-
ous adverse events. Minor problems like headache and nau-
sea are common. Other frequent reactions include
hypertension, rashes and fatigue. There is no evidence of an
increased risk of malignancy.
Ustekinumab
Background
PsA involves different inflammatory pathways to RA. IL-17

is a key inflammatory cytokine produced by Th17 cells in
response to IL-23. It is involved in the pathogenesis of
PsA. Ustekinumab is a novel monoclonal antibody which
targets the shared p40 subunit of IL12 and IL23. It is effective
in both psoriasis and PsA [14].
Clinical Use
Ustekinumab is given by subcutaneous injection. After an

initial dose, and a second dose after 4 weeks, it is given every
12 weeks. Clinical trials show that in PsA it gives greater 6
month ACR responses than placebo. It also reduces enthesi-
tis and dactylitis scores, X-ray progression and disability
scores. Responses are maintained during long-term therapy
both with and without methotrexate [15]. At present many
health services do not recommend using Ustekinumab rou-
tinely as the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is incomplete.
This is likely to change with time.
Adverse Events
At present there is limited safety data on ustekinumab in PsA

due to its relatively recent introduction as a treatment.
However, there is more extensive information from its use in
psoriasis [16]. There are concerns about risks from infection,
malignancy and laboratory test abnormalities and hypersen-
sitivity. So far there appear to be no major increased risks of
these side-effects, but caution is needed.
Anakinra
Background
Interleukin-1 is an important cytokine in RA. It is produced

excessively by the peripheral blood monocytes of RA patients
when compared with healthy individuals. One IL-1 blocking
agent, Anakinra, can be used to treat inflammatory arthritis.
Anakinra is a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist
that inhibits the action of IL-1 by competitively blocking its
binding to IL-1 receptors on target cells. Its half-life after
subcutaneous injection is 36 h.
Clinical Use
Trials have shown that anakinra improves active RA. However,

its impact is relatively modest, even when given with metho-
trexate. It is therefore rarely used for RA, though it is
approved for use in active disease.
More recently there has been an increasing appreciation
of the role that Anakinra plays in the treatment of auto-
inflammatory syndromes. Auto-inflammatory disorders are
characterised by episodes of inflammation apparently involv-
ing unprovoked activation of the innate immune system.
Examples of these diseases include Familial Mediterranean
fever (FMF) and TNF-receptor associated periodic syndrome
References 151
(TRAPS). Although a clinically heterogeneous group of dis-

orders, dysregulation of the IL-1 pathway appears to be piv-
otal in their pathogenesis. Their underlying causation appears
to be abnormal activation of the inflammasome, an intracel-
lular complex that on detection of foreign pathogens by
pathogen-recognition receptors results in activation of IL-1.
Numerous case reports and series of exist outlining the suc-
cessful treatment of these disorders with Anakinra [17].
Anakinra has also been shown to be an effective treatment
for acute gout [18], with monosodium urate crystals causing
pain and joint inflammation through the inflammasome with
subsequent IL-1 activation. Due to its expense and the effi-
cacy of NSAIDs, colchicine and corticosteroids in the man-
agement of acute gout it is not routinely used to treat this
condition.
Side-Effects
Anakinra causes frequent injection site reactions, which may

affect up to two thirds of patients; they do not usually require
treatment. There is a small increased risk of infections, includ-
ing serious infections. Anakinra should not be started and
should be discontinued when these are present. There is no
evidence that it increases the risk of tuberculosis and screen-
ing for this prior to treatment initiation is not required.
References
1. Tsokos GC. B cells, be goneB-cell depletion in the treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:25468.
2. Shaw T, Quan J, Totoritis MC. B cell therapy for rheumatoid
arthritis: the rituximab (anti-CD20) experience. Ann Rheum Dis.
2003;62 Suppl 2: ii559.
3. Lee YH, Bae SC, Song GG. The efficacy and safety of rituximab
for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Rheumatol Int. 2011;31:14939.
4. Isaacs JD, Cohen SB, Emery P, Tak PP, Wang J, Lei G, et al. Effect
of baseline rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated peptide anti-
body serotype on rituximab clinical response: a meta-analysis.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:32936.
5. van Vollenhoven RF, Emery P, Bingham 3rd CO, Keystone EC,
Fleischmann RM, Furst DE, et al. Long-term safety of rituximab
in rheumatoid arthritis: 9.5-year follow-up of the global clinical
trial programme with a focus on adverse events of interest in RA
patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1496502.
6. Dhillon S. Intravenous tocilizumab: a review of its use in adults
with rheumatoid arthritis. BioDrugs. 2014;28:75106.
7. Singh JA, Beg S, Lopez-Olivo MA. Tocilizumab for rheumatoid
arthritis: a Cochrane systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1020.
8. Al-Shakarchi I, Gullick NJ, Scott DL. Current perspectives on
tocilizumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a review.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:65366.
9. Burmester GR, Rubbert-Roth A, Cantagrel A, Hall S,
Leszczynski P, Feldman D, et al. A randomised, double-blind,
parallel-group study of the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous
tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with
traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients
with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (SUMMACTA
study). Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:6974.
10. Genovese MC, Tena CP, Covarrubias A, Leon G, Mysler E,
Keiserman M, et al. Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis: longterm data from the ACQUIRE trial. J
Rheumatol. 2014;41:62939.
11. Maxwell LJ, Singh JA. Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: a
Cochrane systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:23445.
12. Guyot P, Taylor PC, Christensen R, Pericleous L, Drost P,
Eijgelshoven I, et al. Indirect treatment comparison of abatacept
with methotrexate versus other biologic agents for active rheu-
matoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy in the United
kingdom. J Rheumatol. 2012;39:1198206.
13. Atzeni F, Sarzi-Puttini P, Mutti A, Bugatti S, Cavagna L, Caporali
R. Long-term safety of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid
arthritis. Autoimmun Rev. 2013;12:11157.
14. Weitz JE, Ritchlin CT. Ustekinumab: targeting the IL-17 path-
way to improve outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. Expert Opin Biol
Ther. 2014;14:51526.
15. McKeage K. Ustekinumab: a review of its use in psoriatic arthri-
tis. Drugs. 2014;74:102939.
References 153
16. Papp KA, Griffiths CE, Gordon K, Lebwohl M, Szapary PO,

Wasfi Y, et al. Long-term safety of ustekinumab in patients with
moderate-to-severe psoriasis: final results from 5 years of follow-
up. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:84454.
17. Akgul O, Kilic E, Kilic G, Ozgocmen S. Efficacy and safety of
biologic treatments in Familial Mediterranean Fever. Am J Med
Sci. 2013;346:13741.
18. Ottaviani S, Molto A, Ea HK, Neveu S, Gill G, Brunier L, et al.
Efficacy of anakinra in gouty arthritis: a retrospective study of 40
cases. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R123.
Chapter 10
Steroids
Abstract Steroids, in the form of glucocorticoids, are often

used in the management of inflammatory arthritis patients.
They exert anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects
via a range of different mechanisms, with the end-effect being a
reduction in disease activity. They are often given intramuscu-
larly in the form of methylprednisolone (depomedrone) dur-
ing the early stages of arthritis when disease activity is high or
during flares of the disease. Long-term low-dose oral steroids,
in the form of prednisolone, are used, although this is becom-
ing less common in the biologic era. Although often effective
at reducing arthritis activity and preventing erosive progres-
sion, their use is restricted by their broad range of side-effects.
In this chapter we will discuss the different types and methods
of steroid administration in inflammatory arthritis patients, the
evidence supporting their use and their side-effects.
Keywords Corticosteroids Prednisolone Depomederone

Local Injection Side-Effects
Background
Steroids are given locally into joints or soft-tissues to treat
synovitis, tenosynovitis and other local problems. They are
given systemically as either high or low dose oral steroids by

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_10,
156 Chapter 10. Steroids
one or more intramuscular injections or by intravenous

infusions. In each situation they have short-term efficacy. This
benefit must be balanced against their long-term adverse
events which can be serious. The clinical challenge is balanc-
ing their short-term benefits against their long-term risks [1].
The medical terminology is sometimes confusing. Using
steroids to control inflammation involves exploiting their
glucocorticoid properties. Many experts prefer to use the
name glucocorticoids. Other steroids include mineralocorti-
coids, sex steroids and anabolic steroids. Nevertheless it is
customary to use the generic term steroids when referring to
glucocorticoids used to treat arthritis.
Pharmacological Effects
Steroids have complex anti-inflammatory and immunomodu-
latory effects. The term glucocorticoid reflects their involve-
ment in glucose metabolism, which is a central effect of all
glucocorticoids. Their anti-inflammatory and immunosup-
pressive effects involve a range of different mechanisms [2].
Steroids affect almost all immune cells. They inhibit white cell
traffic and access to the sites of inflammation, interfere with
the function of immune cells and suppress the production
and actions of humoral factors. Many of their anti-
inflammatory effects are mediated by cytosolic glucocorti-
coid receptors. These regulate proteins involved in
inflammation and interfere with the function of transcription
factors like nuclear factor-B. Steroids also have rapid, non-
genomic mechanisms, which are implicated in many of their
immediate impacts.
In inflammatory arthritis steroids have impacts on the
clinical symptoms of inflammation, which is partly due to
infiltration of the synovium by lymphocytes. They also effect
erosive progression, a process which is partly due to synovial
infiltration by macrophages. Steroids influence the inflamma-
tory process especially during the first months of treatment.
They also have effects on erosions which are only evident
after more prolonged treatment.
Erosive Progression 157
Steroids are metabolized in the liver. Consequently steroid

effects are reduced by drugs that induce liver enzymes like
phenytoin and rifampicin. Blood levels of steroids may rise in
liver failure. Anticoagulant doses may need adjustment when
given with steroids.
Cortisol, the classical glucocorticoid, is rarely used clini-
cally. Synthetic glucocorticoids are preferred, which are more
potent than cortisol. They differ in their pharmacokinetic
properties, such as absorption and half-life, and the relative
potency of their anti-inflammatory effects. Prednisolone is
the dominant oral steroid and methylprednisolone (depome-
drone) the dominant injectable steroid.
Effects on Joint Inflammation

Systemic steroids reduce joint inflammation in arthritis. They
decrease the number of tender joints and swollen joints and
reduce joint pain and elevated ESRs fall with treatment.
A systematic review of the benefits of steroids report their
benefits across 462 patients enrolled in 11 clinical trials [3].
The daily doses were 2.57.5 mg in four studies, 10 mg in
three studies, and 15 mg in four. The low dose of steroids
resulted in clinically significant improvements that lasted sev-
eral months. Higher doses, such as 20 mg prednisolone daily,
are also effective but are considered to have unacceptable
risks of adverse effects.
Erosive Progression
There is extensive evidence that steroids reduce erosive
damage, particularly in early arthritis when given in combi-
nation with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Even
low dose steroids achieve this goal. A systematic review
of the impact of steroids on erosive progression in RA
included 1,414 patients enrolled in 15 trials [4]. All the trials
except one showed treatment benefits in favour of steroids.
The proportion of benefit from steroids in reducing the
30 %
Percent with new erosions
20 %
10 %
0%
Methotrexate Methotrexate Methotrexate Methotrexate,
and steroids ciclosporin
ciclosporin and steroids
Figure 10.1 Reduction in new erosions by giving steroids with

DMARDs in early rheumatoid arthritis (Figure produced using data
from the Combination Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early RA
(CARDERA) Trial [5])
progression of erosions from an average of all the studies

over 1 year was 60 %. There is evidence for the steroids hav-
ing a long-term benefit on erosive progression even if given
for only 9 months or less. An example of the benefits of
short-term steroids in early RA given with disease modifying
drugs is shown in Fig. 10.1 [5].
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

In early RA it is often thought there is a window of oppor-
tunity during which effective treatment can alter the course
of the disease. There is strong evidence that steroids are par-
ticularly useful in these patients [6]. They have an immediate
impact in reducing clinical symptoms of joint inflammation.
They also reduce erosive damage. One drawback of using
steroids in this way, apart from the risk of adverse effects,
is that the effect on erosions may be small and short lived.
The duration of the effect of steroids in this setting remains
controversial.
Side-Effects 159
Treating Flares with Systemic Steroids

Intramuscular steroid injections, particularly 120 mg methyl-
prednisolone, help reduce flares. They also enhance the
impact of starting DMARDs. Three to four monthly injec-
tions is helpful. Beyond that the evidence for continuing
benefit is incomplete. On balance using intramuscular ste-
roids for prolonged periods is counterproductive [7].
Intravenous steroids have been given and are rapidly
effective. However, their use is often followed by a severe
rebound in symptoms after 23 months. They are therefore
not often used.
Psoriatic Arthritis and Ankylosing Spondylitis

Although many patients with PsA receive systemic steroids
there is no evidence from clinical trials to support this
approach [8]. There is some recent evidence in AS that they
have short-term benefits [9]. However, the dose of steroids
needed was relatively high, the benefits were short-term and
the trial was relatively small. On balance, in patients with
seronegative spondyloarthritis the benefits of systemic ste-
roids remain uncertain, and their use should be limited and
cautious.
Side-Effects
The disadvantages of systemic steroid use are their frequent
and serious side-effects [10]. These problems, which are
multiple, have been known for many years. Patients are con-
cerned by general changes such as weight gain and oedema.
Cardiovascular risks, especially accelerated atherosclerosis,
are one major drawback. Other adverse events include hyper-
tension, increased risk for diabetes and its complications,
development of cataracts and increased incidence of glau-
coma, increased susceptibility to infections, hyperlipidaemia,
and gastrointestinal adverse events such as ulcers. Although

many of these risks are dose-related, a large number of side
effects can occur at relatively low doses.
Some adverse events are preventable, particularly osteo-
porosis. Systemic steroids increase the risk of fractures of the
hip and spine. The greatest increase risk is seen with high-
dose therapy. But increased risk is also seen at lower doses.
Fracture risk increases rapidly after the onset of steroid treat-
ment and declines equally rapidly after cessation of therapy.
Loss of bone mineral density associated with oral steroids is
therefore greatest in the first few months of their use. Patients
at high risk of fracture, particularly those aged 65 years or
over and those with a prior fragility fracture should com-
mence bone-protective therapy at the time of starting ste-
roids. In other individuals, measurement of bone mineral
density using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is
recommended for patients at risk.
Local Steroids
Steroid injections are used in individual joints to control local
synovitis [11]. Patients show improvements in symptoms last-
ing a few weeks to a few months. This approach is more
commonly used for large joints such as the knee.
Other sites that can be injected include entheses where
tendons are inserted into bones and areas of compression, such
as the carpal tunnel when there is median nerve compression.
Usually steroid injections are given without any imaging,
but there is an increasing tendency to give steroids under
ultrasound guidance. The evidence supporting this change is
incomplete.
Injection of the sacroiliac joints may be beneficial for
patients with seronegative arthritis, who have sacroiliac joint
pain as part of a spondylo-arthropathy. This is best carried
out under imaging control.
Adverse effects of local steroid injections are uncommon.
Iatrogenic infection is potentially serious but rare. It occurs
in less than one in 10,000 cases. More common, but less
References 161
clinically important serious include local irritation, atrophy of

soft tissues at the sites of injection and post-injection flares.
There have been isolated reports of weakening and even rup-
ture of tendons after local steroid use. Some patients suffer
a loss of pigmentation, which can be permanent; this can be
a problem for dark skinned individuals.
References
1. Bijlsma JW, Boers M, Saag KG, Furst DE. Glucocorticoids in the
treatment of early and late RA. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;
62:10337.
2. Spies CM, Bijlsma JW, Burmester GR, Buttgereit F. Pharmacology
of glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Pharmacol.
2010;10:3027.
3. Gotzsche PC, Johansen HK. Short-term low-dose corticosteroids
vs placebo and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheuma-
toid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1):CD000189.
4. Kirwan JR, Bijlsma JW, Boers M, Shea BJ. Effects of glucocorti-
coids on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD006356.
5. Choy EH, Smith CM, Farewell V, Walker D, Hassell A, Chau L,
et al. Factorial randomised controlled trial of glucocorticoids and
combination disease modifying drugs in early rheumatoid arthri-
tis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:65663.
6. Gorter SL, Bijlsma JW, Cutolo M, Gomez-Reino J, Kouloumas M,
Smolen JS, et al. Current evidence for the management of rheu-
matoid arthritis with glucocorticoids: a systematic literature
review informing the EULAR recommendations for the manage-
ment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:10104.
7. Choy EH, Kingsley GH, Khoshaba B, Pipitone N, Scott DL,
Intramuscular Methylprednisolone Study G. A two year ran-
domised controlled trial of intramuscular depot steroids in
patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have shown
an incomplete response to disease modifying antirheumatic
drugs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:128893.
8. Fendler C, Baraliakos X, Braun J. Glucocorticoid treatment in
spondyloarthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011;29:S13942.
9. Haibel H, Fendler C, Listing J, Callhoff J, Braun J, Sieper
J. Efficacy of oral prednisolone in active ankylosing spondylitis:
results of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled

short-term trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:2436.
10. Kavanaugh A, Wells AF. Benefits and risks of low-dose glu-
cocorticoid treatment in the patient with rheumatoid arthritis.
11. Jacobs JW, Michels-van Amelsfort JM. How to perform local
soft-tissue glucocorticoid injections? Best Pract Res Clin
Rheumatol. 2013;27:17194.
Chapter 11
Non-drug Treatments
Abstract Treating inflammatory arthritis is not just a matter

of giving medications. Patients require many non-drug
approaches and treatments. These include education and
advice, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, podiatry, psy-
chological support and a range of orthopaedic interven-
tions. This chapter will provide an overview of these crucial
non-pharmacological management approaches.
Keywords Patient Education Physiotherapy Occupational

Therapy Podiatry Psychological Support
Background
Treating inflammatory arthritis is not just a matter of giving
medications. Patients require many non-drug approaches and
treatments. These include education and advice, physiother-
apy, occupational therapy, podiatry, psychological support
and a range of orthopaedic interventions.
Non-drug treatments can be considered in terms of which
type of therapist is involved or by the overall aim of the treat-
ment. This latter approach is preferable in that it does not
specify that treatments should be given by one specific group
of clinicians and that overlapping skills are needed.

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_11,
164 Chapter 11. Non-drug Treatments
An overview of different non-drug therapies in RA [1]

found 382 research studies dealing with approaches. They
found the evidence was strongest for aerobic activities, dynamic
muscular reinforcement and therapeutic patient education.
The situation is somewhat different in AS, where there is
a greater emphasis on exercise for the spine [2]. An overview
on non-drug therapies in these patients concluded that the
cornerstone of non-pharmacological treatment is patient
education and regular exercise. The experts involved also
thought that home exercises are effective but that supervised
exercises should be preferred. Finally in these patients self-
help groups may be useful. In PsA the non-drug therapies
needed often merge approaches used in RA and AS, depend-
ing on the particular problems in an individual patient.
Finally patients may use a variety of alternative medical
approaches. Some of these focus on taking vitamins and
other supplementary treatments, some involve systems of
medicine such as homeopathy, and many involve dietary
changes. Though these alternative approaches are favoured
by many patients, there is very little evidence that they are
effective.
Multidisciplinary Teams
Patients with inflammatory arthritis should be treated by
a multidisciplinary team rather than by an individual clini-
cian. The exact make-up of the team will differ between
units depending on a range of local circumstances [3]. Key
members of the team include rheumatologists, specialist
nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and podia-
trists. Patients are often involved in making decisions about
the care they receive and therefore may sometimes be con-
sidered part of the team. Ideally primary care clinicians and
surgeons would also be involved. Although many clinicians
are involved in the team, one member needs to have over-
all responsibility for coordinating care between the various
health professionals involved. Often this role will be taken
by a specialist nurse.
Promoting Mobility, Function and Participation 165
Education and Support

The diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis has a negative impact
on patients. They need support and advice to deal with their
anxieties about their condition and its management. Most
often this is provided by rheumatology specialist nurses.
Education can be provided for individual patients or groups
of patients. The approach chosen reflects patient preferences
and local custom and practice. It is also possible to incorporate
education within clinic visits by providing structured support
from clinicians; one example of this approach is collaborative
goal-setting with patients. An expert review of the area [4]
highlighted that information is a prerequisite to education and
that appropriate education can empower patients to take an
active part in managing their disease. It will also improve cop-
ing and enhance adherence with treatment regimens.
Promoting Coping
It is essential to help patients deal with their arthritis. A range
of approaches can be used. These include promoting self-
management approaches and attempting to instil a readiness
to change. Cognitive-behavioural approaches, which can be
employed by a range of clinicians, can help promote health
behaviour change. Other psychological therapies may also be
useful. These include relaxation training and stress and mood
management as well as formal cognitive behavioural therapy.
Promoting coping can usually be combined with patient edu-
cation and exercise programmes [5].
Promoting Mobility, Function

and Participation
Equally important is to promote mobility and enhance
function. This can be achieved in several ways. Supportive
information can underline the benefits of exercise and joint
protection and promote lifestyle physical activity. Historically

clinicians advised patients with arthritis to rest. This approach
has now been reversed. Patients should be given advice and
training to improve general and musculoskeletal fitness.
Examples include individualised walking and fitness pro-
grammes and group or individual joint protection training,
which include hand exercises and fatigue management.
General advice should be supported by specific therapy
to help individual needs. Physiotherapy can help by provid-
ing exercise programmes, balance training, hydrotherapy and
mobility aids. Occupational therapy can help by providing
work advice and rehabilitation, training for activities of daily
living, environmental modifications, orthoses, a range of
social and leisure rehabilitation methods and some psycho-
logical therapies. Finally, podiatry can help by giving foot care
and footwear advice, foot orthoses and custom shoes.
Physiotherapy
Physiotherapy uses a range of physical approaches with the
aim of reducing pain, preventing deformity and maximising
function. These aims are achieved by using a range of inter-
ventions. Some are active interventions and others are more
passive (Table 11.1).
A number of guidelines for physiotherapy in inflam-
matory arthritis exist and these have been evaluated by
an expert group [6]. They found that recommendations on
exercise therapy and patient education were included in all
guidelines. Other treatment modalities including transcuta-
neous nerve stimulation and thermotherapy were recom-
mended in most but not all guidelines and a few treatment
approaches such as ultrasound were only recommended
occasionally. Recommendations on physiotherapy interven-
tions were variable and often, lacked detail concerning mode
of delivery, intensity, frequency and duration.
Educating patients about what they can do to improve
their arthritis and exercise to maintain function are key
issues. Until recently there were concerns that exercise would
Physiotherapy 167
Table 11.1 Range of physiotherapy treatments

Treatment modality Examples
Patient education and self- Joint protection methods
management
Pain relief strategies
Relaxation training
Exercise and physical activity
recommendations
Exercise therapy Aerobic activities
Muscle strengthening
Core stability exercise
Balance rehabilitation
Hydrotherapy
Manual therapy Mobilisation and manipulation
Myofascial release and trigger
point therapy
Acupuncture
Thermotherapy Heat and cold to reduce
inflammatory pain
Electro-physical agents Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve
Stimulation (TENS)
Ultrasound
Pulsed Electromagnetic
Energy (PEME)
Interferential therapy (IFT)
Laser
Assistive devices Walking aids
Splints
Orthoses
accelerate joint damage. However, this has not proved to be

the case and there is now greater emphasis on dynamic con-
ditioning exercise. Strategies for exercise are designed to
improve health-related fitness without exacerbating joint
damage. The benefits of physical activity requires regular and
sustained exercise, and adherence with the planned treat-
ment is essential.
Passive treatments depend less on patient concordance but
are less likely to provide an overall benefit. The range spans
manual therapy techniques and electrophysical approaches
such as heat and cold. These are used to solve specific clinical
problems for short periods of time. Other methods include
manual therapy, electrophysical agents such as Transcutaneous
Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) and ultrasound, and
providing assistive devices like walking sticks.
Although a wide range of physical treatments can be used
the best evidence for efficacy is for exercise. This has both
physical and psychological benefits. Aerobic exercise pro-
grammes improve of fitness, improve psychological status,
reduce pain and enhance function without exacerbating dis-
ease activity or accelerating joint damage. Overall it is more
effective to provide a comprehensive package of care in a
community setting addressing the needs of specific patients
by education, exercise and pain relief modalities.
In AS the emphasis is on exercise, which is the most stud-
ied physiotherapy modality [7]. There is strong support for
exercise in these patients and it can be delivered in a variety
of ways. Exercise improves pain, spinal mobility, function,
fatigue and quality of life.
Occupational Therapy
The goal of occupational therapy is improving patients abili-
ties to perform daily activities and participate in life activities
at work, in the home and socially. In addition therapists help
adapt lifestyles and minimise functional and psychological
problems. Comprehensive programmes include a wide range
of interventions. Occupational therapists are trained in both
Occupational Therapy 169
Table 11.2 Range of occupational therapy treatments

Treatment modality Examples
Joint protection Maintaining function through altering
working methods
Education in joint and body mechanics
Assistive devices Hand (e.g. jar openers and ergonomic
vegetable peelers), Knee and hip (e.g. aids
and toilet raisers)
Reduced mobility (e.g. half-steps and
stair rails)
Splinting Resting splints
Working splints
Hand therapy Use of joint protection and splinting for
hands
Work rehabilitation On-site assessments
Ergonometric adaptations
Comprehensive Stress and pain management
(additional
components) Relaxation training
Counselling
physical and mental health rehabilitation. They are therefore

able to help people with arthritis cope with the problems of
multiple functional difficulties, pain, stress and low mood.
A range of different treatment approaches exist (Table 11.2).
They have not all been fully evaluated. When experts have
considered all the available evidence they concluded there
was only limited evidence for the effectiveness of occupa-
tional therapy for functional ability and pain [8]. There was
also some evidence that comprehensive occupational therapy
and instruction on joint protection improved functional abil-
ity. However, it is challenging to undertake definitive research
in this complex area. Nevertheless the balance of evidence
suggests a comprehensive programme of occupational therapy
is likely to improve patients ability to cope with arthritis and

should be provided early in the course of the disease.
Podiatry
Feet are commonly involved in inflammatory arthritis.
Involvement of the joints of the feet causes reduced mobility
and impaired function. In about three quarters of people with
inflammatory arthritis of the feet contributes to difficulty
with walking; it is the main problem in many people.
Regrettably the area is relatively overlooked.
Podiatrists can help people with arthritis in four main ways.
Firstly they can provide education about foot problems and
give advice on footwear. Secondly, they can help provide
orthoses and footwear. Thirdly they can arrange general foot
care, which will include support with nail cutting, corn and cal-
lus reduction and providing padding. Finally in patients with
risks of vasculitic or ulcerative foot involvement they can
provide help in reducing the risks of progression. The evidence
for benefit is strongest with insoles and footwear [9].
Orthopaedic Surgery
The surgical treatment of arthritis is a subject in its own right.
It is impractical to provide detailed guidance on this complex
area in a short book on medical treatments. At the same time
it is inappropriate to entirely ignore this important issue for
many patients. It is also an area in which there have been
dramatic changes in approach [10].
The most important contribution of surgery is the replace-
ment of failed joints. The knee and hip are the most impor-
tant examples, but shoulder and elbow replacements are also
important. Equally effective is the prevention of damage to
tendons by timely intervention to prevent rupture or to repair
ruptured tendons at an early stage. Finally a small minority
of patients have major problems with their cervical spine and
may require surgical intervention to prevent cord damage.
References 171
Patients should be referred for review by an orthopaedic

surgeon if they have:
(a) Persistent pain resulting from joint damage or soft tissue
involvement
(b) Declining function
(c) Increasing deformity
(d) Continuing localised synovitis
There are a number of other reasons such as potential or
definite tendon rupture, nerve compression, joint instability,
joint infection and stress fractures. Multiple tendon rupture,
persisting neurological deficit and non-correctable deformity
causing disability should be avoided by early referral in
patients at risk of these problems.
References
1. Forestier R, Andre-Vert J, Guillez P, Coudeyre E, Lefevre-Colau
MM, Combe B, et al. Non-drug treatment (excluding surgery) in
rheumatoid arthritis: clinical practice guidelines. Joint Bone
Spine. 2009;76:6918.
2. Braun J, van den Berg R, Baraliakos X, Boehm H, Burgos-
Vargas R, Collantes-Estevez E, et al. 2010 update of the ASAS/
EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing
spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:896904.
3. Vliet Vlieland TP. Multidisciplinary team care and outcomes in
rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2004;16:1536.
4. Fautrel B, Pham T, Gossec L, Combe B, Flipo RM, Goupille P,
et al. Role and modalities of information and education in the
management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: development
of recommendations for clinical practice based on published
evidence and expert opinion. Joint Bone Spine. 2005;72:16370.
5. Manning VL, Hurley MV, Scott DL, Coker B, Choy E, Bearne
LM. Education, self-management, and upper extremity exercise
training in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized con-
trolled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66:21727.
6. Hurkmans EJ, Jones A, Li LC, Vliet Vlieland TP. Quality
appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on the use of physio-
therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.
7. Passalent LA. Physiotherapy for ankylosing spondylitis: evidence

and application. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2011;23:1427.
8. Steultjens EM, Dekker J, Bouter LM, van Schaardenburg D, van
Kuyk MA, van den Ende CH. Occupational therapy for rheuma-
toid arthritis: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47:
67285.
9. Hennessy K, Woodburn J, Steultjens MP. Custom foot orthoses
for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res.
2012;64:31120.
10. Nikiphorou E, Konan S, MacGregor AJ, Haddad FS, Young
A. The surgical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a new era?
Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:12879.
Chapter 12
Stopping Treatments
Abstract Inflammatory arthritis is often a long-term

condition that can persist for decades. Treatment is usually
continued long-term, increasing the exposure of patients
to potential adverse events. Although stopping treatment
entirely once a patients disease activity is well controlled is
associated with a significantly increased risk of flaring, there
is a growing body of evidence that it is possible to successfully
taper DMARD, steroid and biologic treatments in patients
who have achieved sustained remissions in their arthritis.
This chapter provides an overview of withdrawing treat-
ment in inflammatory arthritis patients, covering the possible
approaches used and the evidence supporting them.
Keywords Treatment Tapering Treatment Withdrawal

Step-Down Therapy Disease Flare
Introduction
Inflammatory arthritis is usually a long-term condition. It can
persist for years and decades. Two different decisions need to
be made about the timing of treatment. The first decision is
when to start treatment. The second decision is when to stop

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_12,
174 Chapter 12. Stopping Treatments
it. This chapter deals with the latter clinical problem. This
problem is important as patients are often enthusiastic to
have their treatment minimised [1].
Conventional Disease Modifying Drugs

(DMARDs)
Can Patients Stay on DMARDs?
The first issue to consider is how long patients are able to

remain on DMARDs, particularly if they continue to need
them. Most patients who start DMARD monotherapy do not
stay on treatment with single DMARDs indefinitely [2].
More than half the patients who start treatment with a single
DMARD have had to stop treatment after 23 years.
Retention rates differ across different DMARDs. Patients
stay longer on methotrexate than other DMARDs. The prob-
ability of continuing methotrexate for 5 years approaches
80 %. For other DMARDs retention rates are lower. They
may be no more than 30 % after 2 years treatment. Such low
retention rates of patients starting DMARDs mean it is cru-
cial to consider carefully the benefits and risks of discontinu-
ing DMARDs in patients in whom therapy is controlling RA
without causing adverse effects.
Withdrawing DMARDs in Responders
There have been many attempts to stop DMARDs when

patients have achieved good clinical responses [3]. This has
included a substantial number of clinical trials of treatment
withdrawal. Most of these trials are historical. They mainly
studied DMARD withdrawal in patients with RA who were
in remission or were achieving good clinical responses. They
followed patients for as long as 2 years. Most involved classi-
cal DMARDs such as gold and penicillamine, though these
are not widely used today.
About one fifth of patients who continued to take
DMARDs flared. In contrast about two fifth of patients who
Conventional Disease Modifying Drugs (DMARDs) 175
stopped DMARDs had a flare. When patients who

had stopped DMARDs restarted treatment most regained
control of their disease. Only a few patients did not benefit
from resuming DMARDs.
Step-Down DMARD Therapy
One way to give intensive treatment is to start several

DMARDs at the same time [4]. They can then be stepped
down to DMARD monotherapy. This approach is particu-
larly favoured in early RA. Several trials have evaluated
using two conventional DMARDs, usually methotrexate and
sulfasalazine, with prednisolone. Treatment is then stepped
down after 6 months or longer to DMARD monotherapy.
Patients benefit from the use of intensive treatment without
the need to take combinations of drugs indefinitely. Overall
trials in early and established RA show that step-down com-
bination therapy is effective and has sustained benefits.
Remaining on one anchor DMARD reduces subsequent
flares. The optimal maintenance DMARD therapy has not
been identified in these trials. However, most experts believe
methotrexate is the best anchor drug to continue as
monotherapy.
Observational Studies of DMARD Withdrawal
Several historical case series looked at reducing the fre-

quency of DMARD administration [5]. Reducing methotrex-
ate from weekly to fortnightly did not appear to cause more
flares. The same was seen when reducing the frequency of
giving penicillamine, though clearly the relevance of findings
with this historical DMARD to current practice is uncertain.
There is some evidence that when patients are receiving
biological treatment with infliximab the dose of methotrexate
can be tapered without an increased risk of flares.
Despite these positive findings the long-term goal of
drug-free remission remains elusive. It is only rarely
achieved. About 10 % of patients in early arthritis cohorts
who require DMARDs can eventually achieve sustained

drug free remissions when treatments are stopped.
Predicting Flares After DMARD Withdrawal
Detailed analyses of early rheumatoid cohorts have identi-

fied several predictors of drug-free remissions [6]. These are
symptom duration, rheumatoid factor positivity and presence
of the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope alleles. Rheumatoid factor
positivity is the strongest predictor and seropositive patients
are far less likely to be able to withdraw treatment than sero-
negative patients.
Recommendations in Guidelines
After reviewing the available evidence, expert groups have

different perspectives about discontinuing DMARDs. There
appears to be no overall consensus. UK guidelines from the
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
recommend that if RA is stable, DMARD doses should be
cautiously reduced, returning promptly to disease controlling
doses if there are any indications of a flare [7]. EULAR
European guidelines are more guarded about DMARD
tapering. They recommend that in sustained long-term remis-
sion cautious titration of synthetic DMARD dose may be
considered [8]. By contrast American College of
Rheumatology guidelines do not comment on DMARD
withdrawal [9].
Biological Treatments
Stopping and Tapering
Most existing clinical research on tumour necrosis factor

inhibitors in RA focuses on their efficacy and safety. The key
Biological Treatments 177
driver of research has been to show tumour necrosis factor

inhibitors and other biologics improve active inflammatory
arthritis. An important question, which has received far less
attention, is how to maintain response after disease control is
achieved. By default doses of biologics effective in inducing
responses in active arthritis have been continued to maintain
control, though there is no evidence that continued high
doses are needed
If disease control can be maintained with lower doses of
biologics, the cost-effectiveness of these expensive treatments
will increase. It should also lower the risks of serious adverse
events. There are two approaches to decreasing treatment.
One approach is to reduce the frequency of dosing, which
means that treatment has been tapered. The other is to stop
treatment completely. With the growing focus on intensive
and rapid escalation of treatment in early active arthritis, it is
particularly important that consideration is given to reducing
the dosage of biologics when full control is achieved.
Studies in Rheumatoid Arthritis

A number of trials and observational studies have included
an assessment of reducing the dose or stopping treatment
with biologics in patients with inflammatory arthritis [10]. In
virtually all these trials patients have continued to take
DMARDs, particularly methotrexate. At the end of the early
trials of infliximab in RA patients had their biologic stopped.
Most of these patients flared, though control was regained
when patients restarted treatment. Starting treatment again
did not lead to an excess of adverse reactions.
When patients with RA have achieved sustained low
disease activity or remission on biologics, particular tumour
necrosis factor inhibitors, tapering treatment often maintains
clinical response without the disease flaring. Stopping treat-
ment entirely is more likely to lead to flares. However, in all
studies, when treatment with biologics is restarted, disease
control is re-established.
Studies in Psoriatic Arthritis
There is virtually no data on treatment tapering and stopping

in PsA [11]. There is some evidence for observational studies
that when patients have achieved remission treatment can be
interrupted without major disadvantages. However, there
have been no formal studies or trials on this theme.
Studies in Ankylosing Spondylitis
There is relatively little information about treatment tapering

in AS patients. The information that is available suggests that
in some patients who have achieved good clinical responses
treatment intervals can be increased [12]. When patients stop
treatment entirely they usually have a relapse after some
months, though such relapses usually respond to restarting
treatment.
Steroids
Intramuscular steroids and intra-articular steroids are invari-
ably given intermittently. Their use is designed to ensure
patients do not receive long-term treatment. Consequently,
tapering and stopping are not relevant considerations.
Oral steroids bring short-term benefits. However, the
overwhelming balance of evidence suggests in the long-term
their use leads to more adverse events than benefits. As a
consequence there is a strong rationale for stopping
treatment.
In early arthritis most studies show that both short-term
high dose and medium term intermediate dose steroids can
be tapered and then stopped without major disadvantages. In
established arthritis the evidence is incomplete [13].
When patients have taken steroids for prolonged periods
of time treatment should gradually be tapered by about
Conclusions 179
1 mg per month [14]. Most patients can gradually reduce and

stop treatment over 612 months or longer. Some patients
flare and need short-term increases in steroid dosing.
Despite the frequency of use of steroids and the need to
minimise dosing, there is relatively limited research on ste-
roid tapering. However, all expert groups agree that mini-
mising and stopping steroids whenever possible is of critical
importance.
Conclusions
There is nothing worse than agreeing to discontinue treat-
ment in a patient with inflammatory arthritis who is in sus-
tained clinical remission and then to discover over time that
the disease flares and it is impossible to regain control. Most
experienced clinicians will have come across this scenario at
some time or other. It has a major and potentially dispropor-
tional impact on future practice.
Such an occasional negative occurrence must be weighed
against the substantial weight of evidence that shows it is pos-
sible to successfully taper DMARD, steroid and biologic
treatments in patients who have achieved sustained remis-
sions in their arthritis. Stopping treatment completely seems
less practical. When patients do stop treatment, it is usually
possible to regain control by restarting treatment. Patients
with RA may do better if they are left on a single DMARD. As
DMARDs are relatively ineffective in AS, the likelihood of
stopping biologic treatments in these patients seems less.
Leaving patients on long-term treatments that are over
and above those needed to maintain disease control has two
negative features. Firstly, it risks more adverse events.
Secondly, it is unlikely to be cost-effective, and this latter
point is particularly important with high cost biologic treat-
ments. Therefore on balance when patients achieve sustained
remission the best advice appears to be to taper and minimise
but not entirely stop treatment.
References
1. Markusse IM, Akdemir G, Huizinga TW, Allaart CF. Drug-free
holiday in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study
to explore patients opinion. Clin Rheumatol. 2014;33:11559.
2. Maetzel A, Wong A, Strand V, Tugwell P, Wells G, Bombardier
C. Meta-analysis of treatment termination rates among rheuma-
toid arthritis patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic
drugs. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39:97581.
3. Scott IC, Kingsley GH, Scott DL. Can we discontinue synthetic
disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis?
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2013;31:S48.
4. Boers M, van Tuyl L, van den Broek M, Kostense PJ, Allaart CF.
Meta-analysis suggests that intensive non-biological combina-
tion therapy with step-down prednisolone (COBRA strategy)
may also disconnect disease activity and damage in rheumatoid
arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:4069.
5. OMahony R, Richards A, Deighton C, Scott D. Withdrawal of
disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with
rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann
Rheum Dis. 2010;69:18236.
6. van der Woude D, Young A, Jayakumar K, Mertens BJ, Toes RE,
van der Heijde D, et al. Prevalence of and predictive factors for
sustained disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-free remission
in rheumatoid arthritis: results from two large early arthritis
cohorts. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:226271.
7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE
technology appraisal guidance 130 adalimumab, etanercept
and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2007.
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta130. Accessed 29 Oct 2014.
8. Smolen JS, Landewe R, Breedveld FC, Buch M, Burmester G,
Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the manage-
ment of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological
disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann
Rheum Dis. 2014;73:492509.
9. Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A, Curtis JR, Kavanaugh AF,
Kremer JM, et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of
Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-
modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treat-
ment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64:
62539.
References 181
10. van Herwaarden N, den Broeder AA, Jacobs W, van der Maas A,
Bijlsma JW, van Vollenhoven RF, et al. Down-titration and
discontinuation strategies of tumor necrosis factor-blocking
agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease
activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(9):CD010455.
11. Moverley AR, Coates LC, Helliwell PS. Can biologic therapies
be withdrawn or tapered in psoriatic arthritis? Clin Exp
Rheumatol. 2013;31:S513.
12. Lee J, Noh JW, Hwang JW, Oh JM, Kim H, Ahn JK, et al.
Extended dosing of etanercept 25 mg can be effective in patients
with ankylosing spondylitis: a retrospective analysis. Clin
Rheumatol. 2010;29:114954.
13. Boers M. The COBRA trial 20 years later. Clin Exp Rheumatol.
2011;29:S4651.
14. Bacon PA, Myles AB, Beardwell CG, Daly JR. Corticosteroid
withdrawal in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 1966;2:9357.
Chapter 13
Emerging Therapies
in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Abstract The high costs of biologic agents, allied to the fact

that not all patients will respond to them, means there is a
major research focus on developing novel treatments for
RA patients. One solution to these high costs is the develop-
ment of biosimilar drugs. These are biological products
that are highly similar to existing licensed biologics, allowing
for minor differences in clinically inactive components, and
for which there are no clinically meaningful differences in
terms of product safety, purity, and potency. Another solu-
tion that would address both cost and non-responders is the
development of small molecule agents, which target cellular
structures and intracellular signalling proteins such as Janus
Kinases. This chapter will provide an overview of the emerg-
ing therapeutic options for RA patients, spanning biosimilars,
Janus Kinase inhibitors, other kinase inhibitors, PDE4 inhibi-
tors and future potential therapeutic targets such as IL-17
inhibition.
Keywords Biosimilars Small Molecule Drugs Janus

Kinase Inhibitors Tofacitinib

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_13,
184 Chapter 13. Emerging Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Introduction
The last decade has seen an unprecedented expansion in the
therapeutic options available to treat RA. The growing num-
ber of effective biologic drugs highlights the complex nature
of the human immune system. It has become apparent that
similar clinical responses can be obtained by blocking any
number of immune pathways. It therefore seems likely, given
the enormous number of potential immunologic mechanisms
at play in RA that many more therapeutic targets exist. The
game change that biologics have brought about is the appre-
ciation of the success of highly specific drugs.
However, biologic agents face several challenges: first, they
are very expensive, and only marketed by a limited number
of pharmaceutical companies; second, they are large proteins,
which means they are both subject to immunogenicity and
also are unable to be used to target intracellular immunologic
pathways. The solutions to these problems are imminent.
Biosimilars
The pharmaceutical regulators define a biosimilar as a biologi-
cal product that is highly similar to an existing licensed biologic,
allowing for minor differences in clinically inactive components,
and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences
between the biological product and the reference product in
terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product.
The concept of a biosimilar is not a new one, with such
products available for drugs such as insulin or colony stimu-
lating factors having been available for many years. The bio-
logics used in rheumatic diseases differ from existing
biosimilars though, being far more intricate entities, compris-
ing large proteins with complex tertiary and quarternary
structures that are challenging to duplicate. As such, it is not
feasible to produce truly identical products, as subtle changes
in structure, such as those that occur in post-translational
modification, can never be entirely consistent: hence the use
Interchangeability of Biosimilars with Existing Agents 185
of the term biosimilar rather than bioequivalent [1]. Even

small differences in compound structure can result in varia-
tion in clinical efficacy and safety. Therefore the regulatory
authorities have imposed stringent requirements on manu-
facturers developing biosimilar agents to ensure that clinical
(but not structural) equivalence is confirmed before market-
ing authorisation is approved [2]. It is also important to
acknowledge that the potential differences in biosimilars to
their reference compound will be within the range of vari-
ability that is currently observed with batch-to-batch varia-
tion of existing products [3].
Interchangeability of Biosimilars with

Existing Agents
The European Regulators do not have the authority to
enable automatic substitution of biosimilars with reference
agents this is a decision that will need making at a national
level [1]. However, such a move would potentially enable
pharmacists to switch agents without clinician assent. Such
practice raises important concerns. It is known that with
existing agents a key challenge is the development of anti-
drug antibodies. Such immunogenicity is associated with
adverse events and loss of efficacy [4]. In addition it is appar-
ent that an important factor associated with immunogenicity
is intermittent dosing regimens [5]. A theoretical concern is
that intermittent dosing of an individual with a biosimilar
agent and then a reference agent could have a similar effect
upon immunogenicity. Therefore, until data are available,
switching between products will not be recommended. A
practical consideration following from this is that prescrip-
tion of biologics should move to branded prescribing by
clinicians.
However, it is clear that modern manufacturing tech-
niques are superior to those available two decades ago when
biologics first emerged in rheumatology and it would be
wrong to assume that biosimilars will not perform as well as
the reference compounds; evidence to date suggests they are

as effective and in the future it is of course possible perfor-
mance will exceed existing products. Crucially, the arrival of
biosimilars will enact a substantial downwards shift in the
price of biologics in rheumatology, which funding bodies
urgently need.
Drugs in Development
The advent of biologic therapies has highlighted the impor-
tance of delivering drugs that have a specific target. However,
biologics are also limited by a requirement for parenteral
administration, an inability to enter cells and also the risk of
immunogenicity. In recent years there has been a surge in the
development of highly targeted small molecules that block
pathways downstream of where the current biologics are act-
ing. Such agents would be available orally, and not run the
risk of immunogenicity.
JAK Inhibitors
The Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor class is already licensed in
the US and at the time of writing is currently awaiting a deci-
sion from the regulators in Europe. The JAK inhibitors spe-
cifically bind and block members of the JAK enzyme family
(JAK1, JAK2, JAK3 or TYK2). The resultant effect is to sup-
press the downstream production of inflammatory mediators.
Under normal circumstances, JAK phosphorylates a trans-
membrane cytokine receptor in response to an extracellular
signal (for example activation by IL-6). The signal is then
transmitted to the nucleus of the cell via a number of routes
including the Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription
(STAT) pathway. Subsequent nuclear effects result in increase
production of new inflammatory proteins (including TNF).
Therefore, given the knowledge of success in blocking both
IL-6 and TNF pathways, JAK inhibition represents an
obvious target in RA.
JAK Inhibitors 187
60
50
% (SE) ACR50
40
30
20
10 Methotrexate
Tofacitinib 5 mg
Tofacitinib 10 mg
0
0 6 12 24
Time (months)
Figure 13.1 ACR50 response rates from a clinical trial of tofaci-

tinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor, versus methotrexate mono-
therapy in 958 RA patients. Significantly greater ACR50 response
rates seen at all time-points with Tofacitinib therapy compared with
methotrexate (P < 0.001) (Figure adapted using data reported by
Lee et al. [6])
Tofacitinib is a specific inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK3

pathways and is the only currently licensed JAK inhibitor for
rheumatoid at present. The phase 3 trial efficacy data showed
superior efficacy of tofacitinib over methotrexate (Fig. 13.1)
[6]. Across the breadth of publications regarding JAK inhibi-
tors it seems clear that blocking JAK is an efficacious option
(probably equivalent to many of the biologics), however
there are limitations including important adverse effects.
There is a risk of cytopenias (especially anaemia) and an
increased rate of some infections including shingles in par-
ticular appears to be a concern. As more post-marketing
safety data emerge the role of these agents in the treatment
paradigm will become clearer.
Other Kinase Inhibitors

There are numerous other intracellular kinase pathways
that have been investigated in RA. Brutons tyrosine kinase
(BTK) is a molecule that is central to B cell development and
proliferation. Interest in B cells in RA has gained significant
momentum since the success of rituximab. BTK inhibitors
have also been developed and established in the treatment
of B cell leukamias and so therapeutic agents are available.
However, there is an important human model of BTK defi-
ciency in children (Brutons Agammaglobulinaemia) that
results in a state of severe immunodeficiency characterised
by antibody deficiency and recurrent infections. Therefore as
this drug emerges into the rheumatology field there will be
intense scrutiny of the safety profile, with particular attention
to the risk of infections.
Not all new pathways turn out to be successful. Inhibition of
the Spleen Tyrosine Kinase pathway (SyK) has also been inves-
tigated, however the results of the phase three trial revealed
efficacy levels below that deemed necessary for the drug to move
to market and so this pathway has fallen off the radar for RA [7].
PDE4 Inhibitors
Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) is a member of the larger family
of phosphodiesterases. PDE4 is an intracellular molecule that
is involved in the hydrolysis of cyclic AMP within immune
cells, enabling subsequent signaling pathway activation.
Blocking PDE4 has the potential to suppress a wide range of
inflammatory pathways including specific Th1 and Th2
responses. Inhibitors of the PDE pathways have been avail-
able for many years: theophylline is an example of a non-
selective phosphodiesterase inhibitor. Such agents have been
limited in use because of a very narrow therapeutic window
and a high rate of adverse events. However, newer com-
pounds that selectively target phosphodiesterase subfamilies
are emerging as important anti-inflammatory agents.
References 189
Apremilast is a potent and selective PDE4 inhibitor that

has already shown efficacy in PsA (with a US licence granted
and a European license pending) and results of a large phase
3 trial in RA currently awaited.
Future Targets
The examples mentioned already represent pathways where a
drug is already in a late stage of development. However there
are numerous other drugs in various stages of development that
will filter through in the coming years. In particular the rela-
tively recent discovery of a new subset of T cells, the Th17 class,
that appear to be specifically implicated in autoimmune disease
is of great interest [8]. Two corresponding cytokines, IL-17 and
IL-22 have been identified as circulating potential targets to
inhibit the Th17 pathway. Several blocking agents are currently
under study across a wide range of autoimmune diseases.
References
1. Dranitsaris G, Amir E, Dorward K. Biosimilars of biological drug
therapies: regulatory, clinical and commercial considerations.
Drugs. 2011;71:152736.
2. Scheinberg MA, Kay J. The advent of biosimilar therapies in
rheumatologyO brave new world. Nat Rev Rheumatol.
2012;8:4306.
3. Schiestl M, Stangler T, Torella C, Cepeljnik T, Toll H, Grau
R. Acceptable changes in quality attributes of glycosylated bio-
pharmaceuticals. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:3102.
4. Radstake TR, Svenson M, Eijsbouts AM, van den Hoogen FH,
Enevold C, van Riel PL, et al. Formation of antibodies against
infliximab and adalimumab strongly correlates with functional
drug levels and clinical responses in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann
Rheum Dis. 2009;68:173945.
5. Finckh A, Simard JF, Gabay C, Guerne PA, Physicians S. Evidence
for differential acquired drug resistance to anti-tumour necrosis
factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:
74652.
6. Lee EB, Fleischmann R, Hall S, Wilkinson B, Bradley JD, Gruben

D, et al. Tofacitinib versus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis.
N Engl J Med. 2014;370:237786.
7. Weinblatt ME, Genovese MC, Ho M, Hollis S, Rosiak-
Jedrychowicz K, Kavanaugh A, et al. Effects of fostamatinib,
an oral spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis
patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate: results
from a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-
controlled, parallel-group study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014.
doi:10.1002/art.38851.
8. Harrington LE, Hatton RD, Mangan PR, Turner H, Murphy TL,
Murphy KM, et al. Interleukin 17-producing CD4+ effector T
cells develop via a lineage distinct from the T helper type 1 and 2
lineages. Nat Immunol. 2005;6:112332. doi:10.1038/ni1254.
Chapter 14
Stratified Medicine
in Inflammatory Arthritis
Abstract Stratified medicine involves identifying groups

of patients that are likely to benefit from certain treatment
strategies. As inflammatory arthritis patients vary greatly
in their prognosis and which treatments they respond to,
a stratified approach to their management is needed. A
number of clinical and genetic factors have been identi-
fied that can be used to predict an inflammatory arthri-
tis patients likely prognosis and response to treatment.
This chapter will provide an overview of these factors in
patients with RA, PsA and AS. It will describe how current
International guidelines recommend using these factors to
make treatment intensity decisions in inflammatory arthri-
tis patients.
Keywords Stratified Medicine Prognostic Biomarkers

ACPA Genetics
What Is Stratified Medicine?

Stratified medicine involves the identification of patent
subgroups that either have distinct mechanisms of disease
or are likely to respond to particular treatments [1].

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1_14,
192 Chapter 14. Stratified Medicine in Inflammatory Arthritis
This approach allows the identification of groups of patients

that are most likely to benefit from specific management
strategies. In short, it ensures that the right patient gets the
right treatment at the right time [1], which is the holy grail of
modern clinical practice.
Why Stratified Medicine Is Needed

in Inflammatory Arthritis Patients
The inflammatory arthropathies are highly heterogeneous
disorders. This heterogeneity can be considered from two
perspectives:
1. Variability in Disease Course
Inflammatory arthritis patients vary greatly in their
disease course. Some patients have an aggressive
condition, characterised by the early development of
radiological damage and disability. Others have a much
milder course with normal X-rays and no functional
impairment.
2. Variability in Treatment Responses
Inflammatory arthritis patients vary greatly in their
treatment responses. One key example is that one third
of RA patients will fail to achieve an ACR20 response
after being treated with anti-TNF, which is the first line
treatment in active disease not responding to DMARD
therapy [2].
This clinical heterogeneity means that for inflammatory
arthritis patients to receive high quality care a stratified
approach to their management is needed, using clinical
characteristics and biomarkers to identify groups of patients
particularly likely to respond to specific therapeutic strate-
gies. This stratified approach contrasts with current UK
guidelines for inflammatory arthritis patients, which recom-
mend empirical practice managing patients according to the
same treatment pathway.
Predictors of Disease Course in RA 193
Existing Research in Stratified Medicine

A substantial amount of research relevant to stratified
medicine has been undertaken in RA patients. Numerous fac-
tors have been shown to associate with disease outcomes and
treatment responses. A few research groups have attempted
to combine these within prediction models that can be used
to inform patient care. The evidence base for stratified medi-
cine in other forms of inflammatory arthritis is more limited,
although several factors have been shown to predict disease
outcomes and treatment responses in PsA and AS patients.
This chapter will therefore primarily focus on stratified medi-
cine in RA. It will provide a brief overview of relevant prog-
nostic factors in non-RA inflammatory arthropathies.
Predictors of Disease Course in RA
Serology
RF and ACPA are established predictors of RA severity.
Their presence associates with a more severe disease course
characterised by higher rates of radiological damage and
extra-articular manifestations. In one observational study of
135 early RA patients, individuals with a persistently positive
RF had greater X-ray damage, disease activity and disability
and required more aggressive treatment [3]. Similarly in a
cohort study of 93 early RA patients identified amongst
blood donors, the presence of ACPA prior to and at disease
onset associated with worse radiological outcomes [4].
Smoking
There is some evidence that smoking influences RA

severity. In one study of 100 early RA patients observed
over 24 months smokers had more swollen and tender

joints, when compared to non-smokers [5]. The impact of
smoking is, however, difficult to assess as it predispose to
ACPA formation, which could mediate its effect on dis-
ease severity.
Alcohol
Two observational studies have indicated that alcohol

consumption may reduce RA severity. In one study of 873
RA cases, more frequent alcohol intake significantly
associated with lower DAS28-CRP, Larsen and HAQ scores
[6]. In another large observational study of 2,908 RA patients
a J-shaped dose-response effect was seen with occasional/
daily drinkers having less X-ray progression compared with
non-drinkers/heavy drinkers [7].
Social Deprivation
Several studies have observed a correlation between social
deprivation and poor RA outcomes. In 869 patients from the
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) higher social
deprivation scores associated with higher HAQ scores and
joint counts [8]. This effect may be driven by other lifestyle
factors that associate with low socioeconomic status such as
smoking.
Gender
RA may be more severe in women. In a prospective study

of 225 women and 67 men with seropositive early RA,
women had worse disease progression over 2 years with
higher DAS28 scores despite receiving similar therapy to
men; men had higher remission rates [9]. In another
Swedish study women had significantly higher DAS28 and
HAQ scores compared with males at all time-points over 5
years [10].
Predicting RA Severity 195
5
Percentage of variance in x-ray progression explained
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
Shared Epitope
rs11908352 (A)
rs7607479 (C)
rs7667746 (G)
rs7665842 (G)
rs4371699 (A)
rs6821171 (C)
rs1485305 (T)
rs1896368 (G)
rs1896367 (A)
rs1528873 (A)
rs2104286 (C)
rs8192916 (A)
rs1119132 (A)
rs4810485 (T)
rs451066 (A)
rs26232 (T)
SPAG16 IL15 IL15 IL15 IL15 C5orf30 HLA-DRB1 OPG DKK1 DKK1 DKK1 IL2RA GRZB RAD51L1, IL4R CD40 MMP6
ZFP36L1
2 4 4 4 4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10 14 14 16 20 20
Chromosome and risk variant
Figure 14.1 Validated genetic predictors of RA radiological pro-

gression- their association with 6-year changes in X-ray scores in 239
Dutch early RA patients. The risk allele for each SNP is given in the
brackets; X-ray progression measured using the 6-year change in
Sharp/van der Heidje scores; the variance of each variant is from a
univariate analysis (Figure produced using data reported by Van
Steenbergen et al. [11])
Genetics
A number of studies have tried to identify genetic markers that

can be used to predict RA severity. Most have focussed on
genetic associations with X-ray progression. To date 12 genetic
loci that associate with radiological progression have been
identified and replicated [11]. In a Dutch study of 426 early RA
patients, these genetic variants explained approximately 18 %
of the variance in X-ray progression, measured as the change
in the Sharp-van der Heijde score over 6 years (Fig. 14.1). Most
loci had minor effects on X-ray progression. Additionally, their
impact was reduced when adjusting for traditional prognostic
factors such as age, gender and ACPA, suggesting that their
effects may be partially mediated by these clinical factors.
Predicting RA Severity
Several research groups have attempted to combine these
predictive factors in prediction models, which can be used
to predict which patients are likely to have rapid radiological
progression (RRP). One research group developed a model

that included the predictors CRP, erosion score and serology
(RF and ACPA). Their model was able to identify groups of
patients at a very high or low risk of RRP. The highest risk
group had a risk of RRP of 78 %; the lowest risk group had a
risk of RRP of just 1 % [12]. Although this suggests stratify-
ing RA patients to prognostic groups is possible, these predic-
tion models have limited abilities to correctly discriminate
radiological progressors from non-progressors. Additionally
they have mainly been developed and tested in a single data-
set and require validation in external cohorts.
Predictors of Treatment Responses in RA
Gender
Research suggests that males probably respond better to

methotrexate than females. A systematic review of studies
reporting predictors of methotrexate response found that
women were up to three times less likely to have a good clini-
cal response when treated with methotrexate compared to
men [13].
Data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics
Register (which collects clinical data on patients receiving
biologic drugs in the UK) suggests that women may also
respond less well to anti-TNF therapy. In this analysis of
nearly 3,000 RA patients female gender associated with a
reduced odds of remission with etanercept (OR 0.61; 95 % CI
0.380.94) and infliximab (OR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.400.89) treat-
ment [14].
Smoking
Several studies have reported that smoking reduces the effi-

cacy of methotrexate and anti-TNF treatment. One example
is the Epidemiological Investigation of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Predictors of Treatment Responses in RA 197
(EIRA) study, undertaken in Sweden [15]. In this analysis

current smokers were less likely to attain a good response
when receiving both methotrexate and anti-TNF therapy.
Interestingly, a history of previous smoking did not affect
treatment responses.
Serology
Although RF and ACPA do not clearly affect responses to

DMARD treatment there is good evidence that the require-
ment for intensive combination treatment differs between
RA patients with and without ACPA. In an analysis of 431
patients with early, active RA enrolled to the Combination
Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early RA (CARDERA) trial, only
ACPA-positive patients benefited from intensive combina-
tion treatment [16]. No benefit beyond monotherapy with
methotrexate was observed in ACPA-negative patients. This
is demonstrated in Fig. 14.2, which shows mean changes from
baseline in modified Larsen scores (measuring X-ray dam-
age) in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients receiving
combination treatment or methotrexate monotherapy over
2-years. Combination treatment significantly reduced X-ray
progression beyond methotrexate monotherapy at all time-
points in ACPA-positive patients. By contrast ACPA-negative
patients had minimal X-ray progression irrespective of the
treatment strategy used.
There is some evidence that ACPA status can also predict
which patients are most likely to respond to biologic drugs.
Rituximab appears more effective in seropositive (RF and/or
ACPA-positive) patients, with a meta-analysis of four RCTs
demonstrating a significantly greater reduction in DAS28
scores between seropositive and seronegative RA patients at
24 weeks [17]. By contrast TNF-inhibitors seem more effica-
cious in ACPA-negative disease. In an analysis of the UK
Biologics Registry, ACPA-negative patients had a 0.39 (95 %
CI 0.070.71) greater mean improvement in DAS28 with
anti-TNF compared with ACPA-positive patients [18].
12 12
Triple therapy ACPA Triple therapy ACPA
10 *** *** 10
8 *** 8
Larsen
Larsen
6 6
**
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 6 12 18 24 Triple 0 6 12 18 24
Mono
Time(months) Time(months)
Figure 14.2 Impact of ACPA status on responses to combination

treatment in 431 early active RA patients in the CARDERA trial.
Larsen mean change in Larsen scores from study baseline, Triple
triple therapy with methotrexate, prednisolone and ciclosporin,
Mono methotrexate monotherapy, standard error bars are
shown; *indicates significance between treatment groups at P < 0.05;
** indicates significance between treatment groups at P 0.01;
*** indicates significance between treatment groups at P 0.001
(Figure adapted with permission from Seegobin et al. (available at
http://arthritis-research.com/content/16/1/R13) [16], licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution License; figure amended to
include only final pair of graphs)
Overall the impact of ACPA status on biologic responses is

modest, and is of too small an effect size to guide clinical deci-
sion making on its own.
Disease Duration
It is established that treating RA in its very early stages
improves patient outcomes. This concept, known as the win-
dow of opportunity, is demonstrated in a meta-analysis of 14
RCTs evaluating predictors of DMARD responses [19]. The
percentages of patients attaining an ACR 20 response with
active treatment comprised 53, 43, 44, 38 and 35 % for
Prediction Models for Treatment Responses in RA 199
patients with disease durations of <1 year, 12 years, 25

years, 510 years and >10 years, respectively.
Genetics
Attempts to identify genetic predictors of methotrexate
response have focussed on the methotrexate cellular path-
way. Their results have been inconsistent and no clear genetic
marker that predicts methotrexate responses has been identi-
fied [20]. One validated genetic marker that associates with
anti-TNF response has been identified. In this study of nearly
3,000 RA patients one SNP (rs6427528) at the 1q23 locus
associated with changes in DAS28 in patients receiving etan-
ercept (P = 8 108) [21].
Prediction Models for Treatment Responses

in RA
One research group has developed a model that predicts
methotrexate responses in patients with early, active RA [22].
Eight predictive factors (four clinical and four genetic) were
combined to generate a clinical score (ranging from 0 to 11.5)
predicting the probability of a treatment response, defined as
a DAS of 2.4 at 6 months. Using a score cut-off of 3.5
points for treatment responders provided a true positive rate
of 95 %; using a score cut-off of 6 points for non-responders
provided a true negative response rate of 86 %. The model
had modest ability to discriminate between responders and
non-responders, with an AUC value of 0.79. One major limi-
tation of the model was that it classified approximately half
of actual responders as having an intermediate risk of
responding, which is not clinically useful. Further work is
required to identify other risk factors for methotrexate
response, which should reduce the size of the intermediate
risk group. Similar prediction models are yet to be developed
for other DMARDs or biologics.
Stratified Medicine in Non-RA Inflammatory

Arthropathies
Psoriatic Arthritis
In PsA a number of clinical factors have been shown to pre-

dict an individuals disease course. Examples include:
1. Significant inflammation at first presentation- evidence of
significant inflammation at a patients first visit, for exam-
ple high swollen joint counts, has been shown to associate
with a more aggressive disease course [23]
2. Dactylitis- the presence of dactylitis, which is a common
occurrence in PsA patients, appears to influence disease
severity, as it correlates with greater radiological progres-
sion in the affected digit [24]
3. Smoking, an older age at diagnosis and female gender-
these clinical factors have all been linked to higher levels
of disability [25].
Genetic associations with PsA outcomes are limited to
small studies of the HLA locus. In 276 PsA patients followed-
up over 14-years the HLA antigens B27, B39, and DQw3
associated with disease progression [26]. In another study of
101 Italian PsA patients, DQw3 also associated with more
severe disease [27]. Large studies with replication across mul-
tiple populations are required to validate the prognostic rel-
evance of these findings.
Several studies have examined predictors of treatment
responses in PsA patients. In one clinical trial of adalimumab
therapy in active PsA patients, lower disability levels, male
gender, an absence of steroid therapy and higher patient
reported pain levels strongly associated with the attainment
of an ACR50 and good EULAR response to treatment at 3
months [28]. An analysis of data from the Danish biologics
registry identified baseline CRP levels as the dominant pre-
dictor of anti-TNF therapy response [29]. In this study, 1 in 7
patients with normal CRP levels at treatment initiation
Current Use of Stratified Medicine 201
achieved an ACR70 response with anti-TNF. In contrast 1 in

3 patients whose CRP level was elevated at treatment initia-
tion attained an ACR70 response.
A number of clinical factors have been linked to the severity

of radiological damage in AS patients. These include male
gender, the presence of an inflammatory arthritis affecting
the hip joint and a history of iritis, which have all been linked
to more severe radiological damage in the spine.
A number of factors have also been linked to the severity
of AS defined using Bath AS Disease Activity Index
(BASDAI) and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores. In
one study of 635 patients treated with anti-TNF, the variables
age, BASFI scores, enthesitis, treatment, CRP and HLA-B27
genotype associated with BASDAI50 (50 % reduction in
BASDAI scores) responses [30]. In another study of 311 AS
patients, the variables smoking, BASDAI scores and the
extent of radiological damage seen in the spine, hip and sac-
roiliac joints predicted BASFI scores in patients with estab-
lished disease [31].
Current Use of Stratified Medicine

Current UK clinical guidelines from the National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend treating
all inflammatory arthritis patients according to a single treat-
ment pathway. By contrast International guidelines from the
American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European
League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) advocate using a
stratified approach to treatment decisions in inflammatory
arthritis patients, reserving aggressive treatment for patients
with adverse prognostic features. Two examples of this strati-
fied approach are as follows.
Assess disease activity and presence of poor prognosis

features comprising
Functional impairment (High HAQ)
Extra-articular disease (e.g. Nodules)
Positive RF or ACPA
Erosive disease on radiographs
Low activity Moderate activity High activity

All receive DMARD Good prognosis Good prognosis
monotherapy Monotherapy Monotherapy or MTX + HCQ
Poor prognosis Poor prognosis
Combination DMARDS Combination DMARDS or
MTX + anti-TNF
Figure 14.3 ACR guidelines for the management of early RA

patients advocating a stratified approach based on poor prognosis
features. HAQ health assessment questionnaire, RF rheumatoid fac-
tor, ACPA antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens, DMARD
disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, MTX methotrexate, HCQ
hydroxychloroquine, TNF tumour necrosis factor (Figure based on
2012 ACR guidelines [32])
1. 2012 ACR guidelines for early RA treatment

Current American guidelines for the management of
RA patients within the first 6 months of their disease
recommend basing treatment intensity decisions on a
patients disease activity and the presence or absence of
poor prognostic features (Fig. 14.3) [32].
2. 2012 EULAR guidelines for psoriatic arthritis patient
management
Recent EULAR guidelines advocate NSAIDs as a first
line therapy in most PsA patients, with DMARDs initiated
in non-responders. However, they also recommend that in
those patients with active disease (defined as 1 tender
and inflamed joint) and poor prognostic markers,
DMARDs should be instituted as a first line therapy [33].
Suggested poor prognostic factors comprise 5 active
joints, elevated acute phase reactants, progressive radio-
graphic damage, previous steroid use, loss of function and
diminished quality of life.
References 203
Conclusion
Stratified medicine is an area of emerging importance in
the management of inflammatory arthritis patients. Many
poor prognostic factors have been identified, particularly
in RA patients, which can be used to identify patients
requiring more aggressive treatment. This knowledge is
reflected in current International guidelines for managing
RA and PsA patients, which advocate reserving intensive
treatment for poor prognosis patients with active disease.
By contrast knowledge of which factors predict responses
to specific medications is more limited. Further research
is required to better define relevant predictive factors in
inflammatory arthritis patients and to develop and vali-
date prediction models that combine these factors to
identify patient groups likely to respond to certain
therapies.
References
1. Medical Research Council.MRC website.2014.[Internet] Available
at: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/ResearchInitiatives/
StratifiedMedicine/index.htm. Accessed 19 Apr 2014.
2. Rubbert-Roth A, Finckh A. Treatment options in patients with
rheumatoid arthritis failing initial TNF inhibitor therapy: a criti-
cal review. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11 Suppl 1:S1.
3. van Zeben D, Hazes JM, Zwinderman AH, Cats A, van der
Voort EA, Breedveld FC. Clinical significance of rheumatoid
factors in early rheumatoid arthritis: results of a follow up study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 1992;51:102935.
4. Berglin E, Johansson T, Sundin U, Jidell E, Wadell G, Hallmans
G, et al. Radiological outcome in rheumatoid arthritis is pre-
dicted by presence of antibodies against cyclic citrullinated pep-
tide before and at disease onset, and by IgA-RF at disease onset.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:4538.
5. Manfredsdottir VF, Vikingsdottir T, Jonsson T, Geirsson AJ,
Kjartansson O, Heimisdottir M, et al. The effects of tobacco
smoking and rheumatoid factor seropositivity on disease activity
and joint damage in early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology
(Oxford). 2006;45:73440.
6. Maxwell JR, Gowers IR, Moore DJ, Wilson AG. Alcohol

consumption is inversely associated with risk and severity of
rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49:21406.
7. Nissen MJ, Gabay C, Scherer A, Finckh A, Swiss Clinical Quality
Management Project in Rheumatoid A. The effect of alcohol on
radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis
Rheum. 2010;62:126572.
8. ERAS Study Group. Socioeconomic deprivation and rheuma-
toid disease: what lessons for the health service? ERAS Study
Group. Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study. Ann Rheum Dis.
2000;59:7949.
9. Jawaheer D, Maranian P, Park G, Lahiff M, Amjadi SS, Paulus
HE. Disease progression and treatment responses in a prospec-
tive DMARD-naive seropositive early rheumatoid arthritis
cohort: does gender matter? J Rheumatol. 2010;37:247585.
10. Ahlmen M, Svensson B, Albertsson K, Forslind K, Hafstrom I,
Barfot Study Group. Influence of gender on assessments of
disease activity and function in early rheumatoid arthritis in
relation to radiographic joint damage. Ann Rheum Dis.
2010;69:2303.
11. van Steenbergen HW, Tsonaka R, Huizinga TW, le Cessie S,
van der Helm-van Mil AM. Predicting the severity of joint
damage in rheumatoid arthritis; the contribution of genetic
factors. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014. [Epub Ahead of Print].
12. Visser K, Goekoop-Ruiterman YPM, de Vries-Bouwstra JK,
Ronday HK, Seys PEH, Kerstens PJSM, et al. A matrix risk
model for the prediction of rapid radiographic progression in
patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving different dynamic
treatment strategies: post hoc analyses from the BeSt study. Ann
Rheum Dis. 2010;69:13337.
13. Drouin J, Haraoui B, e Initiative Group. Predictors of clinical
response and radiographic progression in patients with rheuma-
toid arthritis treated with methotrexate monotherapy. J
Rheumatol. 2010;37:140510.
14. Hyrich KL, Watson KD, Silman AJ, Symmons DP, British Society
for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Predictors of response to
anti-TNF-alpha therapy among patients with rheumatoid arthri-
tis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics
Register. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45:155865.
15. Saevarsdottir S, Wedren S, Seddighzadeh M, Bengtsson C,
Wesley A, Lindblad S, et al. Patients with early rheumatoid
arthritis who smoke are less likely to respond to treatment with
References 205
methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: observations

from the Epidemiological Investigation of Rheumatoid Arthritis
and the Swedish Rheumatology Register cohorts. Arthritis
Rheum. 2011;63:2636.
16. Seegobin SD, Ma MH, Dahanayake C, Cope AP, Scott DL,
Lewis CM, et al. ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative rheumatoid
arthritis differ in their requirements for combination DMARDs
and corticosteroids: secondary analysis of a randomized
controlled trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16:R13.
17. Isaacs JD, Cohen SB, Emery P, Tak PP, Wang J, Lei G, et al. Effect
of baseline rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated peptide anti-
body serotype on rituximab clinical response: a meta-analysis.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:32936.
18. Potter C, Hyrich KL, Tracey A, Lunt M, Plant D, Symmons DPM,
et al. Association of rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrulli-
nated peptide positivity, but not carriage of shared epitope or
PTPN22 susceptibility variants, with anti-tumour necrosis factor
response in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:
6974.
19. Anderson JJ, Wells G, Verhoeven AC, Felson DT. Factors pre-
dicting response to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: the impor-
tance of disease duration. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:229.
20. Malik F, Ranganathan P. Methotrexate pharmacogenetics in
rheumatoid arthritis: a status report. Pharmacogenomics.
2013;14:30514.
21. Cui J, Stahl EA, Saevarsdottir S, Miceli C, Diogo D, Trynka G,
et al. Genome-wide association study and gene expression
analysis identifies CD84 as a predictor of response to etaner-
cept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:
e1003394.
22. Wessels JA, van der Kooij SM, le Cessie S, Kievit W, Barerra P,
Allaart CF, et al. A clinical pharmacogenetic model to predict
the efficacy of methotrexate monotherapy in recent-onset
rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:176575.
23. Gladman DD, Farewell VT, Nadeau C. Clinical indicators of
progression in psoriatic arthritis: multivariate relative risk
model. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:6759.
24. Brockbank JE, Stein M, Schentag CT, Gladman DD. Dactylitis
in psoriatic arthritis: a marker for disease severity? Ann Rheum
Dis. 2005;64:18890.
25. Tillett W, Jadon D, Shaddick G, Cavill C, Korendowych E, de
Vries CS, et al. Smoking and delay to diagnosis are associated
with poorer functional outcome in psoriatic arthritis. Ann

Rheum Dis. 2013;72:135861.
26. Gladman DD, Farewell VT. The role of HLA antigens as indica-
tors of disease progression in psoriatic arthritis. Multivariate
relative risk model. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:84550.
27. Salvarani C, Macchioni PL, Zizzi F, Mantovani W, Rossi F,
Baricchi R, et al. Clinical subgroups and HLA antigens in Italian
patients with psoriatic arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol.
1989;7:3916.
28. Van den Bosch F, Manger B, Goupille P, McHugh N, Rodevand
E, Holck P, et al. Effectiveness of adalimumab in treating
patients with active psoriatic arthritis and predictors of good
clinical responses for arthritis, skin and nail lesions. Ann Rheum
Dis. 2010;69:3949.
29. Glintborg B, Ostergaard M, Dreyer L, Krogh NS, Tarp U, Hansen
MS, et al. Treatment response, drug survival, and predictors
thereof in 764 patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with anti-
tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy: results from the nationwide
Danish DANBIO registry. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:38290.
30. Vastesaeger N, van der Heijde D, Inman RD, Wang Y, Deodhar A,
Hsu B, et al. Predicting the outcome of ankylosing spondylitis
therapy [Erratum appears in Ann Rheum Dis. 2012
Aug;71(8):1434]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:97381.
31. Doran MF, Brophy S, MacKay K, Taylor G, Calin A. Predictors
of longterm outcome in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol.
2003;30:31620.
32. Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A, Curtis JR, Kavanaugh AF,
Kremer JM, et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of
Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-
modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treat-
ment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64:
62539.
33. Gossec L, Smolen JS, Gaujoux-Viala C, Ash Z, Marzo-Ortega H,
van der Heijde D, et al. European League Against Rheumatism
recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with
pharmacological therapies. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:412.
Index
A Ankylosing spondylitis (AS)

Abatacept biological treatments, 116, 178
adverse reactions, 149 classification criteria
clinical efficacy, 148 for, 5, 78
clinical use, 147 disease outcomes, 63
definition, 147 imaging, 57
dosing, 147148 inflammatory arthropathies,
Adalimumab, 123 201
American College of NSAID, 8384
Rheumatology (ACR) spinal disease, 3031
classification criteria, 5, 6 steroids, 159
clinical and laboratory TNF- inhibitors
assessments, 60 clinical effects, 127
DMARDs, 94 indications, 124
inflammatory arthritis, Anterior uveitis, 37
201202 Antibodies to citrullinated
Anakinra protein antigen
clinical use, 150151 (ACPA), 5253,
definition, 150 197198
side-effects, 151 Anti-TNF therapy, 196, 197
Analgesics Anti-tumour necrosis
buprenorphine and factor-alpha (TNF-)
co-proxamol, 72 treatment
codeine and dihydrocodeine, adalimumab, 123
72 certolizumab, 123
opioids, 7071 clinical effects
paracetamol, 6970 ACR20 to ACR70
simple, 6869 responses, 125
tramadol, 7172 ankylosing spondylitis, 127

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6648-1,
208 Index
Anti-tumour necrosis B
factor-alpha (TNF-) Bath ankylosing spondylitis
treatment (cont.) disease activity index
psoriatic arthritis, 127 (BASDAI), 6061
radiographic progression, B-cell inhibition and other
126 biologics
rheumatoid arthritis, abatacept
125126 adverse reactions, 149
etanercept, 122 clinical efficacy, 148
golimumab, 123 clinical use, 147
immune responses, 132 definition, 147
indications, 124 dosing, 147148
inflammatory arthropathies, anakinra
120121 clinical use, 150151
infliximab, 122 definition, 150
primary/secondary failure, side-effects, 151
132133 rituximab
safety and adverse effects adverse reactions, 141142
auto-immune anti-biologic antibodies,
disorders, 131 143
biologics registries, clinical efficacy, 139140
127128 clinical indications, 139
demyelinating-like definition, 138
disorders, 130 infection, 142143
haematological initial and repeat courses,
disorders, 130 141
heart failure, 130 mechanism of action, 139
hypersensitivity RA, 138139
responses, 128 tocilizumab
infections, 128129 adverse events, 144146
interstitial lung disease, anti-biologic antibodies, 146
131132 clinical efficacy, 144
local injection site clinical use, 143
reactions, 128 definition, 143
malignancy, 131 dosing, 144
psoriasis, 132 ustekinumab
Arthritis mutilans, 29 adverse events, 150
Assessment of Spondyloarthritis clinical use, 149
International definition, 149
Society (ASAS) Biologics
study, 89 anti-rheumatic drugs, 112
Auto-immune anti-TNF, 112
disorders, 131 classes of, 113114
Azathioprine, 105 cost-utility analyses, 117
Index 209
definition, 112 Disease activity score (DAS),

Elliots study, 112 5859
quality-adjusted life years, Disease-modifying
117118 anti-rheumatic drugs
safe and effective treatments, (DMARDs)
117 azathioprine, 105
treatment pathways ciclosporin, 105
ankylosing spondylitis, 116 clinical trials changes
early rheumatoid arthritis, ACR20 and ACR50
115116 responses, 94, 96
psoriatic arthritis, 116 erosive progression, 96, 97
rheumatoid arthritis, improved disability, 94
114115 joint counts and acute
Biosimilars phase reactants, 93, 95
concept of, 184 radiological damage,
interchangeability, 185186 9596
Bone marrow toxicity, 99 tender joint counts, 9394
Brutons tyrosine kinase (BTK) combining DMARDS
inhibitor, 188 vs. ACR70, 108
Buprenorphine, 72 effective combinations,
106107
ineffective combinations,
C 107
CASPAR criteria, 910 intensive treatments, 107
Celecoxib, 77 rationale, 106
Certolizumab, 123 seronegative
Chemokines, 20 spondyloarthritis,
Ciclosporin, 105 108109
Citrulline, 52 conventional disease
Clinical disease activity index modifying drugs
(CDAI), 59 observational studies
Codeine, 72 of, 175176
Cortisol, 157 patients considerations,
Cox-2 drugs (COXIBs), 174
7577 predicting flares, 176
C-reactive protein (CRP), 4950 in responders, 174175
Cyclo-oxygenase (COX), 7374 step-down therapy, 175
Cytokines, 19 UK guidelines, 176
definition, 8788
early and late disease, 91
D efficacy of, 8889
Demyelinating-like efficacy vs. harms, 89, 90
disorders, 130 hydroxychloroquine, 104
Dihydrocodeine, 72 injectable gold, 103104
210 Index
Disease-modifying G
anti-rheumatic drugs Genetics
(DMARDs) (cont.) disease course, 195
intensive treatment, 92 treatment responses, 199
leflunomide Golimumab, 123
active metabolite, 100 Greyscale ultrasound, 5556
adverse events, 101102
clinical use and efficacy,
101 H
definition, 100 Haematological disorders, 130
pyrimidine synthesis Health assessment questionnaire
effect, 100101 (HAQ), 4647
methotrexate Heart failure, 130
adverse reactions, 99100 Hydroxychloroquine, 104
clinical use and efficacy, Hypersensitivity responses, 128
9799 Hypertension, 102
definition, 9697
minor, 105
monitoring, 89 I
seronegative arthritis, 93 Inflammatory arthritis
starting, 89 ACR response criteria, 60
stopping, 9091 adhesion molecules in, 20
sulfasalazine, 102103 aetiology, 1617
treat to target, 92 assessment role, 40
use of, 88 BASDAI, 6061
Distal interphalangeal joint biological treatments
arthritis, 28 ankylosing spondylitis, 178
DMARDs. See Disease-modifying psoriatic arthritis, 178
anti-rheumatic drugs rheumatoid arthritis, 177
(DMARDs) steroids, 178179
Doppler ultrasound, 5556 stopping and tapering,
176177
CDAI, 59
E chemokines, 20
Elliots study, 112 classification criteria, 5
Enthesitis, 2930 clinical assessments, 4043
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent clinical course, 33
assays (ELISA), 52 core data set, 5758
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate diagnosis
(ESR), 4950 ankylosing spondylitis,
Etanercept, 122 5, 78
European League Against psoriatic arthritis, 810
Rheumatism rheumatoid arthritis, 5
(EULAR), 5, 7, spondyloarthropathies, 10
201202 disease activity score, 5859
EuroQol, 4849 disease outcomes, 6163
Index 211
DMARDs (see Disease- Interstitial lung disease (ILD),

modifying anti- 131132
rheumatic drugs Intramuscular steroid injections,
(DMARDs)) 159
epidemiology of, 1416
extra-articular disease, 3637
global health assessments, J
4344 Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor,
functional assessments, 186187
4647 Joint inflammation, 157
generic health status
measures, 4749
pain scores, 45 K
historical perspectives, 34 Keratin, 52
imaging
ankylosing spondylitis, 57
psoriatic arthritis, 5657 L
reactive arthritis, 57 Larsen scoring method, 54
rheumatoid arthritis, 5356 Lawrence study, 14, 15
inflamed synovium, 1718 Leflunomide
inflammatory cells and active metabolite, 100
cytokines, 1819 adverse events, 101102
28-joint counts, 4043 clinical use and efficacy, 101
laboratory assessments definition, 100
acute phase response, pyrimidine synthesis effect,
4950 100101
antibodies to citrullinated Likert scores, 43
protein antigens, 5253 Liver toxicity, 99
MBDA test, 51 Local steroids injections,
rheumatoid factor, 5152 160161
lymphocytes, 18 Lymphocytes, 20
metalloproteinases, 20
pathology of, 1720
PsARC, 60 M
risk factors, 23 Magnetic resonance imaging
SDAI, 59 (MRI), 8, 56
tender and swollen joint Malignancy, 131
counts, 4243 Metalloproteinases, 20
treatment, 3 Methotrexate
types, 23 adverse reactions, 99100
Inflammatory arthropathies, clinical use and efficacy, 9799
120121 definition, 9697
Infliximab, 122 Misoprostol, 80
Interleukin-1 (Il-1), 19, 138 Monoarthritis, 28
Interleukin-6 (Il-6) inhibition, Multi-biomarker disease activity
138 (MBDA), 51
212 Index
N P
Neutropenia, 146 Paracetamol, 6970
Non-drug treatments Peripheral joints, synovitis of
definition, 163 joint swelling and tenderness,
education and support, 165 2425
multidisciplinary teams, 164 symptoms, 24
occupational therapy, 168170 Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4)
orthopaedic surgery, 170171 inhibitors, 188189
overview of, 164 Physiotherapy
physiotherapy aerobic exercise programmes,
aerobic exercise 168
programmes, 168 benefits, 168
benefits, 168 interventions, 166, 167
interventions, 166, 167 Podiatry, 170
podiatry, 170 Polyarthritis, 28
promote mobility and Psoriasis, 132
enhance function, Psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 200201
165166 biological treatments, 116, 178
promoting coping, 165 classification criteria for, 810
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory disease outcomes, 63
drugs (NSAIDs) imaging, 5657
adverse reactions NSAID, 83
cardiovascular, 8182 peripheral joints involvement,
central nervous system, 78 2829
gastrointestinal, 7981 steroids, 159
renal side effects, 7879 TNF- inhibitors
ankylosing spondylitis, 8384 clinical effects, 127
classification of, 7475 indications, 124
Cox-2 drugs, 7577 Psoriatic arthritis response
Cox I/Cox II effects, 7374 criteria (PsARC), 60
mechanism of action, 7374 Pulmonary interstitial
psoriatic arthritis, 83 disease, 99
rheumatoid arthritis, 8283
seronegative
spondyloarthritis, 83 R
Norfolk study, 14, 15 Rapid radiological progression
(RRP), 195196
Reactive arthritis, 57
O Rheumatoid arthritis (RA)
Occupational therapy, 168170 aetiology of, 16
Oligoarthritis, 28 biological treatments,
Omeprazole, 80 114115, 177
Opioids, 7071 biosimilars, 184186
Orthopaedic surgery, 170171 BTK inhibitors, 188
Index 213
classification criteria for, 57 treatment responses

clinical course, 3233 disease duration, 198199
core data set in, 5758 gender, 196
disease course genetics, 199
alcohol, 194 prediction models, 199
gender, 194195 serology, 197198
genetics, 195 smoking, 196197
prediction models, Rheumatoid factor (RF) tests,
195196 5152
RRP, 195196 Rituximab
serology, 193 adverse reactions, 141142
smoking, 193194 anti-biologic antibodies, 143
social deprivation, 194 clinical efficacy, 139140
disease outcomes, 6163 clinical indications, 139
drug development, 186 definition, 138
epidemiology of, 14, 15 infection, 142143
extra-articular disease initial and repeat courses, 141
cardiac disorders, 36 mechanism of action, 139
lung and eye problem, 36 rheumatoid arthritis, 138139
neurological problem, 35 Rose-Waaler tests, 51
rheumatoid
nodules, 3435
rheumatoid vasculitis, 35 S
skin involvement, 36 Seronegative arthritis (SA)
JAK inhibitor, 186187 aetiology of, 17
NSAID in, 8283 DMARDs, 93
pathology of, 1718 epidemiology of, 14, 16
patient global assessments, 44 Seronegative spondyloarthritis
PDE4 inhibitor, 188189 DMARDs, 108109
peripheral joint inflammation NSAID, 83
ankle joint, 26 SF-36, 48
cervical pain, 25 Sharp scoring method, 54
hip involvement, 27 Simplified disease activity index
inflamed hand, 2526 (SDAI), 59
knee involvement, 27 Spinal disease
tendons, 25 ankylosing spondylitis, 3031
wrist damage, 25 rheumatoid arthritis, 31
spinal disease, 31 spondyloarthritis, 31
systemic features, 3132 Spondyloarthritis, 31
tender and swollen joint Spondyloarthropathies
counts, 4243 extra-articular features, 36
TNF- inhibitors inflammatory arthritis, 3
clinical effects, 125126 peripheral joint inflammation,
indications, 124 29
214 Index
Steroids Tocilizumab
ankylosing spondylitis, 159 adverse events
definition, 155156 infection, 145
early rheumatoid arthritis, infusion and
158 hypersensitivity
erosive progression, 157158 reactions, 145
intramuscular steroid lipid elevations, 146
injections, 159 liver function test
joint inflammation effects, 157 abnormalities, 146
local steroids injections, neutropenia and
160161 thrombocytopenia, 146
pharmacological effects, anti-biologic antibodies, 146
156157 clinical efficacy, 144
psoriatic arthritis, 159 clinical use, 143
side-effects, 159160 definition, 143
Stratified medicine dosing, 144
ACR guidelines, 201202 Tramadol, 7172
disease course, variability, 192 Tuberculosis, 129
EULAR guidelines, 201202 Tumour necrosis factor-alpha
non-RA inflammatory (TNF-), 19
arthropathies
ankylosing spondylitis, 201
psoriatic arthritis, 200201 U
RA (see Rheumatoid arthritis Ultrasound, 5556
(RA)) Ustekinumab
research, 193 adverse events, 150
treatment responses, clinical use, 149
variability, 192 definition, 149
Sulfasalazine, 102103
Swollen joint count, 4243
V
Visual analogue scales (VAS),
T 43, 45
T-cell modulation, 138
Tender joint count, 4243
Tenosynovitis, 25 X
Thrombocytopenia, 146 X-rays, rheumatoid arthritis, 5355

Artritis Inflamtoria en La Practica 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artritis Inflamtoria en La Practica 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artritis Inflamtoria en La Practica 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ian C.

ISBN 978-1-4471-6647-4 ISBN 978-1-4471-6648-1 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015932095

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

The inflammatory arthropathies are a group of conditions

disease severity; such markers could guide decisions on treat-

London, UK Ian C. Scott

1 An Overview of Inflammatory Arthritis. . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Epidemiology and Pathology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Clinical and Laboratory Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5 Symptomatic Drug Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6 Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs . . . . . . . . 87

Other DMARDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

7 Biologics An Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

8 Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-Alpha

Clinical Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

9 B-Cell Inhibition and Other Biologics . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

11 Non-drug Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

12 Stopping Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

13 Emerging Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis . . . . . 183

14 Stratified Medicine in Inflammatory Arthritis . . . . . 191

Predictors of Disease Course in RA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

ACPA Antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens

ILD Interstitial lung disease

Abstract Inflammatory arthritis spans a number of diseases.

Keywords Inflammatory Arthritis Historical Perspective

I.C. Scott et al., Inflammatory Arthritis in Clinical Practice, 1

What Are the Inflammatory Arthropathies?

factors (particularly smoking in RA) and demographic fac-

an academic clinician in London, to distinguish the disease

The Concept of Classification Criteria

There are no diagnostic criteria for any of the inflammatory

It is usually straightforward to diagnose RA. Sometimes it can

AS is often considered to be the main spondyloarthritis. Its

High-positive RF or high-positive ACPA = 3 points

Table 1.2 Modified New York criteria for classifying ankylosing

Reduced chest expansion

established of which is the 1984 modified New York criteria

Table 1.3 Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society

There has been less agreement on the criteria for classifying

Inflammatory articular disease

Score 3 from 5 domains

Domain 1: Domain 2: Nail Domain 3: Domain 4: Domain 5:

Figure 1.1 The Classification Criteria for PsA (CASPAR) criteria

negative RF, dactylitis or characteristic radiological changes.

There is less agreement on the criteria for diagnosing reactive

Abstract RA and the seronegative spondyloarthropathies

Keywords Prevalence Complex Disease HLA Risk

I.C. Scott et al., Inflammatory Arthritis in Clinical Practice, 13

Epidemiology of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Epidemiology of Seronegative Arthritis

Figure 2.1 Comparing the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis from

spondyloarthropathy are the most frequent spondyloarthrop-

Aetiology of Inflammatory Arthritis

Genetic and environmental risk factors are best defined for

The dominant genetic risk factor for the seronegative spon-

Pathology of Inflammatory Arthritis

Inflammatory synovitis is the key pathological feature in

Figure 2.2 Normal and inflamed synovium in inflammatory arthritis

Generic Health Status Measures

Acute Phase Response