Cardiovascular risk management in rheumatoid arthritis: are we still waiting for the first step?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with a similar cardiovascular risk to that in diabetes, and therefore cardiovascular risk management (CV-RM) - that is, identification and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) - is mandatory. However, whether and to what extent this is done in daily clinical practice is unknown. In a retrospective cohort investigation, CV-RM was therefore compared between rheumatologists and primary care physicians (PCPs). Remarkably, CRFs in RA were less frequently identified and managed by rheumatologists in comparison with PCPs. In addition, PCPs assessed CRFs less frequently in RA than in diabetes. Obviously, there is a clear need for improvement of CV-RM in RA and this should be a joint effort from the rheumatologist and the PCP.Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased cardiovascular (CV) risk that appears similar to that in diabetes. This observation highlights the significant CV burden in RA. In 1999, the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association published a statement for prevention of CV disease in diabetes. Since then, the CV risk in diabetes has been substantially lower than in earlier decades. Given the increased CV risk in RA, screening, identification of cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) and cardiovascular risk management (CV-RM) are also highly needed as recommended by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). The increased risk in RA is attributed to systemic inflammation as well as increased prevalence of CRFs. Hence, we should aim for tight disease control and control of CRFs.Presently unknown is whether and to what extent CV-RM is translated into clinical practice. In a retrospective cohort-comprising 251 patients with RA, 251 patients with diabetes, and 251 general population individuals-Desai and colleagues therefore investigated the identification and management of CRFs by rheumatologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) [1]. RA patients had to be registered at the University of Michigan Health System for at least 12 months between June 2007 and April 2012 and had been evaluated both by their rheumatologist as well as the PCP. CRFs of interest were smoking, exercise, weight, blood pressure, lipid profile, and fasting blood glucose.In RA, PCPs identified and managed most CRFs more frequently than rheumatologists. Secondly, identification of CRFs by rheumatologists in RA patients with elevated C-reactive protein levels was not different as compared with those with normal C-reactive protein levels. A third important observation was that PCPs identified and managed CRFs more frequently in patients with diabetes, followed by general population individuals and least often in RA patients. These striking results raise several issues.First, it is hard to believe that the largely absent CV-RM by rheumatologists is explained by under-recognition because the increased CV risk in RA must presently be well known among rheumatologists. A large amount of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade. Additionally, the necessity to screen, identify, and manage CRFs is incorporated into training programmes for rheumatology residents [2]. Against this background, it is important to realise that there is a lag time between the publication of the EULAR guideline and its actual implementation (that is, the guideline was published in 2010 [3] while the current study started in 2007). In other words, CV-RM in today''s clinical practice might have been improved, but not yet recognised.Second, that the CV risk in RA is related to the inflammatory burden is well known. Nevertheless, the present study did not indicate that there is more attention for CV-RM by rheumatologists in patients with a higher inflammatory load.Third, undertreatment of the increased CV risk in RA by PCPs might be explained by under-recognition because CRFs were assessed more frequently in diabetes in comparison with RA.The EULAR guidelines recommend screening and identification of CRFs in all RA patients, and, if indicated according to CV risk-prediction charts, adequate management. As accurate assessment of CV risk depends on RA characteristics, the EULAR favoured individualising risk assessment. Hence, a risk multiplication factor of 1.5 should be used in the presence of two of the following criteria: disease duration >10 years, rheumatoid factor, and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide positivity or the presence of extra-articular manifestations. However, alternative approaches have been suggested - for example, increasing the age of an RA patient by 10 years to obtain a more precise CV risk estimate or to use other risk scores. Perhaps this lack of an RA-specific CV risk-prediction model hampers CV-RM implementation. Obviously, this discussion can only be solved by developing a RA-specific CV risk-prediction model, but this will take several years to complete.One may obviously argue that, due to its retrospective design, the strength of the conclusions of Desai and colleagues may be limited; however, they are in line with other recently published literature and thus confirm extending evidence that CV-RM is poorly conducted in RA, both by rheumatologists and PCPs. Another argument against CV-RM in RA is that we should wait until trials have been conducted that demonstrate the efficacy of statins and antihypertensive agents in RA. However, it will be (many) years before specific risk models are available and withholding cardiopreventive drugs that are very likely to work also in our high-risk population is unethical. Moreover, it is important to realise that, due to the decreased incidence of CV events in the last decades, CV prevention trials are nowadays very difficult to conduct. For instance, the TRACE-RA study [4] - a large placebo-controlled double-blind primary CV prevention trial in RA with atorvastatin - was stopped prematurely owing to the very low number of CV events that occurred.Altogether, the study from Desai and colleagues provides three important clues for improvement of CV-RM in RA. First, more education is urgently needed for both rheumatologists and PCPs. Second, it is important to realise that the contribution of higher prevalence CRFs in RA is one side of the coin, but the other side is effective suppression of the inflammation. The latter is a clear task for the rheumatologist. Third, CV care of a RA patient should be a joint effort by the rheumatologist and the PCP, and they should collaborate and agree on who performs the screening, identification, and, if required, management of CRFs.     

Which patients with rheumatoid arthritis are still working?

In the light of improved and costly treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the evaluation of work disability has gained increased attention. The assumption that better treatment of RA leads to increased work participation has not yet been supported by sufficient evidence. Differences in RA-related work disability have been observed between countries, also indicating an influence of non-disease-related macroeconomic factors. Work disability results from a complex interaction between a clinical disease, sociodemographic variables, macroeconomic conditions, and personal factors. Some of these factors are modifiable, while others are not.     

Androgens in rheumatoid arthritis: when are they effectors?

Neither hormone receptor genes nor plasma androgens seem significantly altered in female subjects before they became affected by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and, therefore, do not seem to play a role as risk factors for its development. However, serum testosterone levels are inversely correlated with RA activity and dehydro-epiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) plasma levels are inversely correlated with both disease duration and clinical severity in patients already affected by active RA. In particular, gonadal and adrenal androgens (that is, testosterone and DHEAS) are significantly decreased in inflamed synovial tissue/fluids during active disease as a consequence of the inflammatory reaction, which supports a pro-inflammatory milieu in RA joints. Recently, male gender has been found to be a major predictor of remission in early RA.     

The need for prognosticators in rheumatoid arthritis. Biological and clinical markers: where are we now?

Rheumatoid arthritis is a heterogeneous disease with respect to clinical manifestations, serologic abnormalities, joint damage and functional impairment. Predicting outcome in a reliable way to allow for strategic therapeutic decision-making as well as for prediction of the response to the various therapeutic modalities available today, especially biological agents, would provide means for optimization of care. In the present article, the current information on biological and clinical markers related to disease activity and joint damage as well as for predictive purposes is reviewed. It will be shown that the relationship of many biomarkers with disease characteristics is confounded by factors unrelated to the disease, and that only few biomarkers exist with some predictive value. Moreover, clinical markers appear of equal value as biomarkers for this purpose, although they likewise have limited capacity in these regards. The analysis suggests the search for better markers to predict outcomes and therapeutic responsiveness in rheumatoid arthritis needs to be intensified.     

Genetics of rheumatoid arthritis: what have we learned?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease affecting 0.5–1% of the population worldwide. The disease has a heterogeneous character, including clinical subsets of anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive and APCA-negative disease. Although the pathogenesis of RA is poorly understood, progress has been made in identifying genetic factors that contribute to the disease. The most important genetic risk factor for RA is found in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus. In particular, the HLA molecules carrying the amino acid sequence QKRAA, QRRAA, or RRRAA at positions 70–74 of the DRβ1 chain are associated with the disease. The HLA molecules carrying these “shared epitope” sequences only predispose for ACPA-positive disease. More than two decades after the discovery of HLA-DRB1 as a genetic risk factor, the second genetic risk factor for RA was identified in 2003. The introduction of new techniques, such as methods to perform genome-wide association has led to the identification of more than 20 additional genetic risk factors within the last 4 years, with most of these factors being located near genes implicated in immunological pathways. These findings underscore the role of the immune system in RA pathogenesis and may provide valuable insight into the specific pathways that cause RA.     

Interferon-beta for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis?

IFN-beta treatment is emerging as a potentially effective form of therapy in various immune-mediated conditions. The present review addresses the possible role of IFN-beta in immune-mediated diseases such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Several placebo-controlled trials are discussed, as are the available immunological data that are relevant to this field. Review of these data provides evidence that IFN-beta has some beneficial therapeutic effect in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and might also have antirheumatic potential. This notion is supported by recent studies showing a critical role for IFN-beta in bone homeostasis.     

Genome editing in livestock: Are we ready for a revolution in animal breeding industry?

Genome editing is a powerful technology that can efficiently alter the genome of organisms to achieve targeted modification of endogenous genes and targeted integration of exogenous genes. Current genome-editing tools mainly include ZFN, TALEN and CRISPR/Cas9, which have been successfully applied to all species tested including zebrafish, humans, mice, rats, monkeys, pigs, cattle, sheep, goats and others. The application of genome editing has quickly swept through the entire biomedical field, including livestock breeding. Traditional livestock breeding is associated with rate limiting issues such as long breeding cycle and limitations of genetic resources. Genome editing tools offer solutions to these problems at affordable costs. Generation of gene-edited livestock with improved traits has proven feasible and valuable. For example, the CD163 gene-edited pig is resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS, also referred to as “blue ear disease”), and a SP110 gene knock-in cow less susceptible to tuberculosis. Given the high efficiency and low cost of genome editing tools, particularly CRISPR/Cas9, it is foreseeable that a significant number of genome edited livestock animals will be produced in the near future; hence it is imperative to comprehensively evaluate the pros and cons they will bring to the livestock breeding industry. Only with these considerations in mind, we will be able to fully take the advantage of the genome editing era in livestock breeding.     

Gene therapy for arthritis--where do we stand?

The successful use of biologicals in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis has had a major impact on the management of these conditions. The challenge in the development of gene therapy as an alternative to these current treatments is to demonstrate that such therapy is more advantageous for patients from the therapeutic and safety points of view. Also, it will need to be demonstrated that gene therapy for the arthritides is economically feasible and that patient populations worldwide will be able to access these treatments.     

Detail in network models of epidemiology: are we there yet?

Network models of infectious disease epidemiology can potentially provide insight into how to tailor control strategies for specific regions, but only if the network adequately reflects the structure of the region's contact network. Typically, the network is produced by models that incorporate details about human interactions. Each detail added renders the models more complicated and more difficult to calibrate, but also more faithful to the actual contact network structure. We propose a statistical test to determine when sufficient detail has been added to the models and demonstrate its application to the models used to create a synthetic population and contact network for the USA.     

Sustained biologic-free and drug-free remission in rheumatoid arthritis,where are we now?

The advent of new medications and new treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis has made it possible to achieve remission in more patients than before. Furthermore, recent clinical trials and register studies suggest that some patients who initially required aggressive therapy may achieve biologic-free remission or even the ultimate goal of therapy, drug-free remission, resembling recovery. Here, we present a discursive review of the most important studies addressing these issues. Based on the overall results, it remains unclear if achieving biologic-free and drug-free remissions are primarily due to the natural course of the disease or to the early therapeutic intervention according to the ‘window of opportunity’ hypothesis. Although medication-free remission is only achievable in a small subset of patients, characterizing this patient cohort may provide important information about beneficial prognostic factors and the underlying mechanisms. In summary, in a subset of patients biologic-free and even drug-free remission can be achieved; pursuing these possibilities in practice may decrease the risk for long-term side effects and attenuate the economic burden of the disease.     

Interferon-β for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis?

IFN-β treatment is emerging as a potentially effective form of therapy in various immune-mediated conditions. The present review addresses the possible role of IFN-β in immune-mediated diseases such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Several placebo-controlled trials are discussed, as are the available immunological data that are relevant to this field. Review of these data provides evidence that IFN-β has some beneficial therapeutic effect in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and might also have antirheumatic potential. This notion is supported by recent studies showing a critical role for IFN-β in bone homeostasis.     

Modulating co-stimulation: a rational strategy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common destructive inflammatory disease that affects 0.5-1% of the population in many countries. Even though several new treatments have been introduced for patients with RA, a considerable proportion of patients do not benefit from these, and the need for alternative treatment strategies is clear. This review explores the potential for a therapy targeting the adaptive immune system by modulating co-stimulation of T cells with a CTLA4-Ig fusion protein (abatacept).     

Chemokine blockade: a new era in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis?

Blockade of chemokines or chemokine receptors is emerging as a new potential treatment for various immune-mediated conditions. This review focuses on the therapeutic potential in rheumatoid arthritis, based on studies in animal models and patients. Several knockout models as well as in vivo use of chemokine antagonists are discussed. Review of these data suggests that this approach might lead to novel therapeutic strategies in rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic inflammatory disorders.     

Gene therapy in the clinic: whose risks?

Current experience with gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (X-SCID) suggests that we might now be at the point where it can be considered the 'standard of care'. This therapy carries an unquantified risk of leukaemia, raising important questions for regulators. How dangerous does a potentially curative therapy for a fatal illness need to be before we call it unsafe. How uncertain does a risk need to be for us to regard a therapy as still 'experimental'? Whose interests should prevail? Here I argue that in X-SCID it is the parents and children whom we should listen to first and foremost. How far does this patient-centred approach to licensing therapies extend? Can it be given a rational basis?