CTLA4-Ig exerts preferable effect for both bone erosion and bone microarchitecture in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a prospective, non-randomized two-group study using HR-pQCT

CTLA4-Ig exerts preferable effect for both bone erosion and bone microarchitecture in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a prospective, non-randomized two-group study using HR-pQCT | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article CTLA4-Ig exerts preferable effect for both bone erosion and bone microarchitecture in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a prospective, non-randomized two-group study using HR-pQCT Naoki Iwamoto, Ko Chiba, Shuntaro Sato, Shigeki Tashiro, Kazuteru Shiraishi, and 8 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691594/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objective: This exploratory study aimed to examine the impact of abatacept treatment on bone structure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). Methods: RA patients initiating either abatacept or newly introduced csDMARDs were enrolled in this prospective, non-randomized, two-group study. Bone structure in the 2nd and 3rd metacarpal heads was assessed using HR-pQCT at 0, 6, and 12 months after enrollment. Synovitis was evaluated using musculoskeletal ultrasound and MRI. The adjusted mean between-group differences (abatacept–csDMARDs group) were estimated using a mixed-effect model. Results: Thirty-five patients (abatacept group: n=15; csDMARDs group: n=20) were analyzed. Changes in erosion volume, depth and width were numerically smaller in the abatacept group compared to the csDMARDs group (adjusted mean between-group differences: -1.86 mm³, -0.02 mm, and -0.09 mm, respectively). Over a 12-month period, 5 erosions emerged in the csDMARDs group, while only 1 erosion appeared in the abatacept group. Compared to csDMARDs, abatacept better preserved bone microarchitecture; several components of bone microarchitecture were significantly worsened at 6 months in the csDMARDs group, but were not deteriorated at 6 months in the abatacept group. Changes in synovitis scores were similar between the two treatment groups. Conclusions: Our results indicate that abatacept prevented the progression of bone erosion including new occurrence, and also prevented worsening of bone strength independently with synovitis compared to csDMARDs including MTX. Thus, abatacept treatment may provide benefits not only in inhibiting the progress of bone erosion but also in preventing bone microarchitectural deterioration. Rheumatoid arthritis CTLA4-Ig Abatacept csDMARDs bone microarchitecture bone erosion Hr-pQCT Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Key Message CTLA4-Ig inhibits not only bone erosion but also the deterioration of bone strength. Introduction Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease principally effecting synovial joints and characterized by a distinctive pattern of bone and joint destruction. One of the crucial goals of treating RA is to prevent bone destruction, which can ultimately lead to joint damage and a decline in the quality of life, affecting everyday activities. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) is an advanced 3-dimensional imaging technique with superior sensitivity in assessing bone 1 . Due to its high resolution, HR-pQCT surpasses conventional methods such as X-ray or computed tomography in evaluating bone erosion. HR-pQCT allows independent measurement of specific parameters of bone erosion, such as width, depth, and volume, in addition to revealing the status of the bone microarchitecture. In previous studies, HR-pQCT has been used to detect peri-articular osteoporosis in RA and has provided detailed insights into the changes in bone erosion and microarchitecture throughout the clinical course of RA 2 – 5 . However, few studies using HR-pQCT have focused on the association of bone structure with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and comparison with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs is even rarer 6 – 8 . Abatacept is a soluble fusion protein of the extracellular domain of the human cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), which inhibits the activation of T lymphocytes by binding the CD80 and CD86 on the surface of antigen-presenting cells. Clinical trials have demonstrated that abatacept exhibits efficacy similar to other bDMARDs, leading treatment guidelines to recommend it on par with other bDMARDs 9 – 11 . Several large studies have demonstrated that abatacept has an inhibitory effect on bone erosion progression 12 , 13 . However, in these studies only conventional image modalities such as X-ray were used to analyze the bone erosions, and comprehensive investigations linking abatacept treatment with detailed periarticular osteoporosis remain lacking, despite observations of increased bone mineral density (BMD) with abatacept treatment 14 , 15 . Also, there are several subsets of CD4 T helper (Th) cells with different functions, such as Th1, Th2, Th17, and Tfh, and these have been suggested to play a role in RA activity. Indeed, the importance of these subsets was also confirmed by previously described clinical effects of abatacept. Among T-cell subsets, Th17 has been implicated in promoting bone destruction through its expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) via interleukin (IL)-17 16 . Conversely, cytokines such as IL-4 or interferon-γ that are produced by other Th subsets exert inhibitory effects on osteoclast differentiation. Consequently, the precise roles of T-cell subsets in synovitis and bone destruction in RA remain incompletely elucidated, with previous reports indicating conflicting effects on joint destruction by T-cell function or osteoclastic effects by T regs. Thus, in this study, we used HR-pQCT to analyze the detailed changes in bone microarchitecture and other aspects of joint structure during abatacept treatment, and a multiplex assay to analyze the T-cell related factors. Methods Study design, patients and treatment This study is a prospective non-randomized two-group exploratory study that assessed the association between abatacept treatment and bone microarchitecture using HR-pQCT. Patients were included who 1) fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for RA 17 ; 2) were administered no more than 7.5 mg prednisolone equivalent per day; 3) had not received any drugs for osteoporosis; and 4) had no history of administration with biologic or targeted synthetics DMARDs. Consecutive patients who met all these requirements and in whom treatment with abatacept or one of the newly introduced csDMARDs had been planned were enrolled. All patients were enrolled at the Nagasaki University Hospital. Written informed consent which was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nagasaki University (IRB approval no. 16092611) were obtained from all patients. We collected the data of all patients in each group at baseline, including age, sex, disease duration, positivity of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and concomitant medications. Efficacy endpoints The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in bone erosion detected by HR-pQCT in joints to be evaluated. Additionally, a co-primary endpoint was the change in bone microarchitecture. Secondary endpoints assessed through month 12 included synovitis evaluated by ultrasound; synovitis, bone erosion and osteitis assessed via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); BMD, evaluated using Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA); joint destruction, assessed by X-ray; serum biomarkers obtained through a multiplex bead assay; and clinical disease activity. Detailed information regarding the variables adapted to outcomes is described in the following section. Variables to be assessed High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography HR-pQCT (XtremeCT II, SCANCO Medical AG, Brüttisellen, Switzerland) of the second and third metacarpal bones (of the affected hand, the more severely affected hand [if both hands were affected], or the hand of the subject’s dominant arm [if both hands were unaffected or affected to equal extents]) was performed at months 0, 6 and 12 and bone erosion was evaluated as described previously 18 . In addition to bone erosion, the following indices of bone microarchitecture were estimated using HR-pQCT: trabecular volumetric bone mineral density (Tb.vBMD), trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular number (Tb.N), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), and trabecular separation (Tb.Sp). Ultrasound assessment Several Japan College of Rheumatology (JCR)-certified rheumatologists who were blinded to the clinical information and laboratory data performed musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) at months 0, 6 and 12. For correction of interobserver variability, the obtained US images was also evaluated among them, and discussed to reach a consensus. A systemic multiplanar gray scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) examination were performed in the following 22 joints: the bilateral wrists (intracarpal, radiocarpal and ulnocarpal recesses) and finger joints including the 1st -5th metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints, the 1st interphalangeal (IP) joint and the 2nd -5th proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints (dorsal recess) with the same scanner (Toshiba AplioXG, Canon i800) using a multifrequency linear transducer. Each joint was given a GS and PD score from 0 to 3 according to the US findings, as described previously. 19 Magnetic resonance imaging of wrists and finger joints MRIs of the of wrists and finger joints of the affected hand were acquired using 3T system (Sigma; General Electric Medial Systems, Milwaukee, WI) with an extremity coil at months 0, 6 and 12. Coronal T1-weighted spin-echo (repetition time[TR] 450, echo time [TE] 13) and STIR (TR 3000, TE 12, T1 160) images were acquired. The images were evaluated for osteitis, bone erosion, and synovitis according to the rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score (RAMRIS). 20 , 21 The MRIs were scored by two independent experienced radiologists (MU, NO) who were blinded to the clinical data. Bone mineral density measurement DXA was performed to evaluate the BMD of the lumbar spine (L2-L4) and femoral neck at months 0, 6 and 12. A Discovery™ Wi QDR densitometer (Hologic, Bedford, MA) was used for bone densitometry. Radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine were taken for pre-existing vertebral fractures and new fractures at the same time as BMD measurement. Radiographs Radiographs of hands/wrists and feet were obtained at months 0, 6 and 12.Two readers (TK, AO) who were trained and certified by Prof. van der Heijde (Leiden University Medical Center) and blinded to the treatment and clinical status of patients independently reviewed and scored the images using the modified total Sharp score (mTSS), as described previously. 22 , 23 Multiplex bead assay We measured the concentrations of the biomarkers using serum stored at months 0, 6 and 12. We performed a multiplex cytokine/chemokine bead assay using MILLIPLEX MAP human Cytokine/Chemokine Magnetic Bead Panel 1-premixed 38 Plex (Millipore, Billerica, MA) kits as described previously. 24 And for detection of following biomarkers related to T-cells and bone metabolism; Interferon Inducible T-Cell Alpha Chemoattractant (ITAC), macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-3α, IL-21, IL-23, Dickkopf (DKK)1, osteoprotegerin (OPG), osteocalcin (OC), osteopontin (OPN) and sclerostin (SOST), the custom multiplex bead assay was performed in parallel. The biomarkers that were frequently found to be at non-detectable levels were excluded from analysis. Clinical assessment The patients' clinical disease activity was assessed using the disease activity score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after enrollment. Statistical analysis Since this was an exploratory study and there were no previous data with which to gauge a sample size, a statistical sample size calculation was not performed. Therefore, based on feasibility, we set a target sample size of 40 patients, 20 in the abatacept group and 20 in the csDMARDs group. Firstly, we summarized and compared the baseline characteristics for each group. Continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Categorical data were presented as number and percentage and compared using Fisher's exact test. Next, we descriptively examined the actual values and changes from baseline for each outcome measure. The Adjusted mean between-group differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, ACPA, and baseline values of the outcome measures. RF was excluded from the adjusted variables because the same patients tested positive for both ACPA and RF. The random effects were the patients, and for the HR-pQCT data, which were available for each joint, the joint was also included. The between-group differences were estimated as the difference in the mean values for each group, and 95% confidence intervals were also estimated. P-values were calculated but not adjusted for multiplicity. For actual value of bone microarchitecture, and biomarker analysis, normal distribution of the data was confirmed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. And, The Student's paired t-test was utilized to identify statistically significant differences in the parameters of bone microarchitecture, whereas the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for non-parametric data. For compariosn of biomarker change, the Student's unpaired t-test was employed for parametric data, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data. As this study is exploratory, caution should be exercised when interpreting the P-values. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.3.2 or GraphPad prism software. Results Patient disposition and baseline characteristics Nineteen patients received abatacept and 22 patients received newly introduced csDMARDs in this study. Within the abatacept group, 2 patients discontinued treatment before the 6-month mark due to allergy or personal preference, and an additional 3 patients ceased abatacept therapy after 6 months due to inefficacy or adverse events (specifically, pneumonia and leukopenia). Within the csDMARDs group, 2 patients withdrew consent before the 6-month period, and an additional 6 patients discontinued treatment after 6 months: 4 due to worsening arthritis that necessitated bDMARDs and 2 due to withdrawal of consent. All other patients completed the 12-month observation period while receiving either abatacept or csDMARDs treatment. Finally, 2 patients from the abatacept group were excluded due to unanalyzable HR-pQCT results. Our analysis thus focused on 15 patients from the abatacept group and 20 patients from the csDMARDs group who underwent HR-pQCT scans at least twice, once at baseline and again at the 6-month mark. Table 1 summarizes the baseline demographic and disease characteristics of the patients. The abatacept group exhibited higher age, longer disease duration and less concomitant oral steroid dose as compared with the csDMARDs group. Other baseline characteristics, including sex, ACPA/RF positivity and disease activity, were comparable between the two treatment groups. Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the study population Abatacept (N = 15) csDMARDs (N = 20) P value Female, n (%) 12 (80.0) 17 (85.0) > 0.99 Age, years 73.1 ± 8.7 63.2 ± 9.7 0.004 Duration of RA, years 5.0 ± 5.9 2.0 ± 5.0 0.006 csDMARDs MTX:18,TAC:1 SASP:1 Concomitant MTX use, n (%) 7 (46.7) Concomitant oral steroid use, n (%) 4 (26.7) 7 (35.0) 0.721 Mean oral steroid dose (mg/day) 2.25 ± 1.89 5.86 ± 1.86 0.018 ACPA positive, n (%) 12/13 (92.0) 14/20 (70.0) 0.198 RF positive, n (%) 12/13 (92.0) 14/20 (70.0) 0.198 DAS28-ESR 5.19 ± 1.57 5.01 ± 1.34 0.593 CDAI 20.5 ± 14.3 21.0 ± 10.2 0.913 Data are mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated. RA rheumatoid arthritis, csDMARDs conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, MTX methotrexate, ACPA anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, RF rheumatoid factor, DAS disease activity score, ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CDAI clinical disease activity index Changes in bone erosion Changes in bone erosions at the 2nd and 3rd metacarpal heads were assessed by HR-pQCT. At baseline, there were 16 and 9 erosions in the abatacept and csDMARDs groups, respectively. Table 2 shows the alteration in erosion volume, as quantified by HR-pQCT. The mean change from baseline (SD) in the volume of bone erosion as measured by HR-pQCT at 12 months after initiating each treatment was − 1.14 (2.49) mm 3 in abatacept group vs. -0.26 (0.9) mm 3 in the csDMARDs group (Fig. 1 ). After adjusting for age, sex, concomitant use of steroid, disease duration, and ACPA, the adjusted mean difference between the two groups was − 1.86 mm 3 (95%CI: -4.28, 0.56; P = 0.122). Similar results were observed for the adjusted mean difference between the groups regarding the depth of bone erosion (change from baseline to month 12: -0.02 mm; 95%CI: -0.30, 0.27; P = 0.890) and width of bone erosion (change from baseline to month 12: -0.09 mm; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.17; P = 0.476). Table 2 Change from baseline in bone erosion parameters evaluated by HR-pQCT Month Abatacept (N = 15) csDMARDs (N = 20) Adjusted mean difference (Abatacept – csDMARDs) [95%CI], P value Mean change from baseline (SD) Mean change from baseline (SD) Bone erosion-volume, mm 3 6 -0.77 (2.56) -0.36 (1.13) -0.97 [-3.07, 1.13], P = 0.337 12 -1.14 (2.49) -0.26 (0.90) -1.86 [-4.28, 0.56], P = 0.122 Bone erosion-depth, mm 6 0.03 (0.23) -0.05 (0.14) 0.02 [-0.20, 0.25], P = 0.830 12 -0.04 (0.30) -0.09 (0.18) -0.02 [-0.30, 0.27, P = 0.890 Bone erosion- width, mm 6 -0.06 (0.21) 0.01 (0.15) -0.11 [-0.34, 0.11], P = 0.293 12 -0.16 (0.38) -0.22 (0.41) -0.09 [-0.35, 0.17], P = 0.476 The adjusted mean differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, RF, and baseline values of the outcome measures. The random effects were the patients and each joint. SD standard deviation, CI confidence interval In addition to achieving a better improvement in the mean quantification of erosion volume, the abatacept group also demonstrated a greater number of improvements in erosion volume compared to the baseline (Supplemental Table S1 ). In the abatacept group, 6 erosions exhibited improvement compared to baseline, whereas in the csDMARDs group only 3 erosions showed improvement. Furthermore, the csDMARDs group exhibited a higher frequency of newly appearing erosions compared to the abatacept group. Over a 12-month period, 5 erosions emerged in the csDMARDs group, while only 1 erosion appeared in the abatacept group. These findings suggest that the csDMARDs treatment may be associated with a higher risk of developing new erosions in comparison to the abatacept treatment. Changes in bone microarchitecture In addition to assessing bone erosion, bone microarchitecture was evaluated using HR-pQCT. Table 3 summarizes the findings regarding changes in bone microarchitecture. The mean changes (SD) in periarticular vBMD of the 2–3 metacarpal heads, as measured by HR-pQCT, were − 1.63 (13.43) mg/cm 3 in the abatacept group and − 5.26 (21.57) mg/cm 3 in the csDMARDs group from baseline to month 12. After adjustment, the mean difference between the two groups was 1.22 mg/cm 3 (95%CI: -7.37, 9.81; P = 0.778). Similar trends were observed in adjusted mean difference of BV/TV, Tb.N and Tb.Sp, with changes of 0.38%, 0.021/mm, and − 15.29 µm, respectively. However, there was a contrasting result for Tb.Th, where the adjusted mean difference between the two groups was − 0.45 µm. Although the adjusted mean difference between two groups was not significantly different, the actual values of several components of bone microarchitectures, such as vBMD and BV/TV, significantly worsened at 6 months in the csDMARDs group (we were only able to compare mean values of each time point up to 6 months, as not all patients had completed the study by the 12-month mark), whereas in the abatacept group, there was no deterioration observed at 6 months (Fig. 2 ). These results suggest that abatacept shows a more favorable association with bone microarchitecture compared to csDMARDs. Table 3 Change from baseline in bone microarchitecture parameters evaluated by HR-pQCT Month Abatacept (N = 15) csDMARDs (N = 20) Adjusted mean difference (Abatacept – csDMARDs) [95%CI], P value Mean change from baseline (SD) Mean change from baseline (SD) Tb.vBMD, mg/cm³ 6 -0.89 (10.79) -7.90 (19.56) 3.46 [-3.97, 10.88], P = 0.355 12 -1.63 (13.43) -5.26 (21.57) 1.22 [-7.37, 9.81] P = 0.778 BV/TV, % 6 -0.15 (1.71) -1.15 (2.81) 0.62 [-0.46, 1.71], P = 0.254 12 -0.31 (1.99) -0.86 (2.91) 0.38 [-0.87, 1.63], P = 0.548 Tb.N, 1/mm 6 -0.03 (0.10) -0.02 (0.08) 0.02 [-0.02, 0.06], P = 0.368 12 -0.01 (0.07) -0.01 (0.10) 0.02 [-0.03, 0.07], P = 0.399 Tb.Sp, µm 6 13.26 (26.26) 11.38 (37.75) -14.75 [-32.49, 2.99], P = 0.101 12 15.53 (23.33) 13.44 (46.60) -15.29 [-35.49, 4.91], P = 0.136 Tb.Th, µm 6 -0.3 (5.64) -3.38 (8.17) 0.88 [-2.94, 4.70], P = 0.645 12 -0.89 (8.02) -2.75 (9.10) -0.45 [-4.77, 3.88], P = 0.837 The Adjusted mean differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, RF, and baseline values of the outcome measures. The random effects were the patients. csDMARDs conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, Tb.vBMD trabecular volumetric bone mineral density, BV/TV trabecular bone volume fraction, Tb.N trabecular number, Tb. Sp trabecular separation, Tb.Th trabecular thickness, SD standard deviation, CI confidence interval Clinical response The clinical response was comparable between the two groups throughout the observation period (Table 4 ). In the abatacept group, the mean changes (SD) of DAS28-ESR and CDAI from baseline to month 12 were − 1.54 (1.44) and − 11.65 (8.79), respectively. The corresponding values in the csDMARDs group were − 1.72 (1.55) and − 13.92 (11.11), respectively. The differences in adjusted mean change from baseline to month 12 between the two groups were not significant. For DAS28-ESR, the adjusted mean difference was 0.01 (95%CI: -0.92, 0.94; P = 0.986). Similarly, for CDAI, the adjusted mean difference was − 0.5 (95%CI: -6.09, 5.08; P = 0.858), indicating no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical response. Table 4 Change from baseline in clinical evaluations and other secondary endpoints evaluated by other imaging modalities Month Abatacept (N = 15) csDMARDs (N = 20) Adjusted mean difference (Abatacept – csDMARDs) [95%CI], P value Mean change from baseline (SD) Mean change from baseline (SD) DAS28-ESR 6 -1.05 (1.20) -1.54 (1.41) 0.35 [-0.58, 1.28], P = 0.452 12 -1.54 (1.44) -1.72 (1.55) 0.01 [-0.92, 0.94], P = 0.986 CDAI 6 -10.00 (11.18) -12.74 (9.45) 1.66 [-3.55, 6.86], P = 0.529 12 -11.65 (8.79) -13.92 (11.11) -0.50 [-6.09, 5.08], P = 0.858 PD score in both hands by musculoskeletal ultrasound 6 -2.9 (5.2) -4.2 (8.9) -0.65 [-4.02, 2.72], P = 0.695 12 -3.6 (4.3) -6.4 (11.7) 0.03 [-3.39, 3.45], P = 0.986 GS + PD score in both hands by musculoskeletal ultrasound 6 -6.0 (9.0) -8.6 (16.0) 0.59 [-6.09, 7.28], P = 0.857 12 -6.8 (6.5) -10.6 (18.0) 1.50 [-5.32, 8.33], P = 0.657 RAMRIS total score by MRI 6 -8.1 (11.3) -3.7 (13.6) -0.59 [-12.54, 11.35], P = 0.921 12 -10.2 (9.6) -7.6 (19.3) 2.12 [-10.67, 14.91], P = 0.740 mTSS by X-ray 6 0.7 (1.2) 0.9 (1.1) 0.52 [-2.62, 3.66], P = 0.739 12 -1.2 (7.0) 1.4 (1.7) -2.08 [-5.41, 1.25], P = 0.215 Lumbar spine, % 6 -0.71 (2.64) 0.47 (3.67) -1.35 [-5.34, 2.65], P = 0.498 12 0.17 (2.87) 1.82 (6.07) -1.87 [-5.70, 1.95], P = 0.326 Femoral neck. % 6 -2.22 (1.93) -1.36 (2.53) -0.75 [-3.46, 1.96], P = 0.574 12 -2.94 (2.83) -0.22 (3.35) -2.59 [-5.24, 0.05], P = 0.054 The adjusted mean differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, RF, and baseline values of the outcome measures. The random effects were the patients. csDMARDs conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, DAS disease activity score, ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CDAI clinical disease activity index, PD power Doppler, GS gray scale, RAMRIS rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, mTSS modified total Sharp score, BMD bone mineral density, DXA Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, SD standard deviation, CI confidence interval Synovitis and osteitis detected by US and MRI The changes in RAMRIS total score and US synovitis score from baseline to month 12 are summarized in Table 4 . Notably, both scores demonstrated improvement in both groups. The adjusted between-group differences in the change in total RAMRIS score by MRI and PD score by US from baseline to month 12 were found to be 2.12 (95%CI: -10.67, 14.91; P = 0.740) and 0.03 (95%CI: -3.39, 3.45; P = 0.986), respectively. Radiographic progression In addition to the synovitis and osteitis changes mentioned above, Table 4 shows the changes in radiographic bone destruction measured by mTSS throughout observation period. While no significant differences were observed, the csDMARDs group showed greater progression in bone erosion compared to the abatacept group. The mean change (SD) in total score from baseline to 12 months was − 1.2 (7.0) in the abatacept group, whereas it amounted to 1.4 (1.7) in the cs DMARDs group (the adjusted between-group difference in the change in TSS from baseline to month 12 was − 2.08 (95%CI: -5.41, 1.25; P = 0.215). Systemic bone mass change The association between abatacept treatment and systemic bone metabolism was also evaluated in this study. The percent changes from baseline to 6 and 12 months in BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck measured by DXA are summarized in Table 4 . At the 12-month mark, there was an increase in areal BMD at the lumbar spine compared to baseline. Notably, this increase was numerically higher in the csDMARDs group compared to the abatacept group: 1.82% (6.07) vs. 0.17% (2.87), respectively. Conversely, the areal BMD at the femoral neck showed a decrease at 12 months from baseline in both groups. Similarly to the lumbar spine, the rate of decrease was lower in the csDMARDs group, which exhibited a decline of only − 0.22% (3.35), compared to the abatacept group's larger decrease of -2.94%. After adjustment, the mean differences between the two groups were − 1.87 (95%CI: -5.70, 1.95; P = 0.326) in the lumbar spine and − 2.59 (95%CI: -5.24, 0.05; P = 0.054) in the femoral neck. Biomarker Changes in serum humoral factors related to inflammation, T-cells and bone metabolism were evaluable in 24 of the enrolled patients (abatacept group: n = 9; csDMARDs group: n = 15). For most of the evaluated humoral factors, changes over the treatment period were comparable between the abatacept and csDMARDs group, with only the osteopontin level exhibiting a significantly greater increased from baseline at both 6 and 12 months in the abatacept group compared to the csDMARDs group (Supplemental Table S2). The mean change in osteopontin level from baseline to month 12 was 383.9 pg/mL in the abatacept group, whereas that were − 273.0 pg/mL in the csDMARDs group (the between-group difference in the change in serum ostepontin levels from baseline to month 12 was 656.9 (95%CI: 163.0, 1058.0; P < 0.005). Discussion In this study, HR-pQCT enabled a detailed analysis of bone structure changes during abatacept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The findings indicate that abatacept exhibits a greater inhibitory effect on the progression of bone erosion and deterioration of bone quality compared to treatment with csDMARDs. After 1 year of treatment, the mean bone erosion volume decreased, and although not statistically significant, the reduction in erosion volume was notably greater compared to that by csDMARDs treatment. Furthermore, abatacept demonstrated superior efficacy in preventing the occurrence of new bone erosions for one year, i.e., only one new erosion was detected. Several previous researches have indicated that abatacept prevents bone erosion in RA 12 , 13 . However, results of most of these studies come from radiological analyses, and conventional radiography is not sensitive enough to detect early structural change. Indeed, one study reported that the sensitivity and specificity of conventional radiography for RA patients in whom bone erosion was detected by HR-pQCT were 85% and 38%, respectively 25 . This more precise detection method was better able to detect differences in the bone erosion progression rate between abatacept and csDMARDs compared with previous reports. Moreover, bone repair could also be observed by using HR-pQCT, mean bone erosion volume decreased with superiority in abatacept group. This result suggested that abatacept affected not only inhibition of bone erosion but also bone formation. Giovanni et al. reported that serum bone formation markers (B-ALP, PTH and P1NP) were increased during abatacept treatment 26 . And CTLA4-Ig affect to bone formation with relation of Wnt/β-Catenin signal have been reportedl 27 . In the present study almost all parameters of bone microarchitecture were worsened in both groups, but such worsening was less pronounced by abatacept treatment than by csDMARDs treatment. In the analysis of actual value, though the analysis could be performed up to 6 months due to treatment discontinuation, the csDMARDs group exhibited a statistically significant worsening, whereas such deterioration was not observed in the abatacept group. Periarticular osteoporosis as pre-exist of bone erosion have been reported 28 – 30 . In a study that assessed the efficacy of infliximab, progression in erosions was independently associated with increased bone mineral density loss in the hands after 1 year 30 . These results are consistent with our study, as we found that csDMARDs treatment worsened various parameters of bone microarchitecture, including vBMD, and that new bone erosion was more prevalent in the csDMARDs group compared to the abatacept group. One possible reason for these favorable effects on periarticular bone as compared to csDMARDs treatment might have been related to the actions of osteoclasts. Bozec et al. revealed that CTLA4-Ig directly inhibited osteoclast differentiation by inducing the IDO pathway, 31 and other report revealed that interfering with intracellular calcium oscillations resulted in inhibition of osteoclast differentiation by CTLA4-Ig. 32 In addition to osteoclastogenesis, an in vivo imaging experiment revealed that CTLA4-Ig prevented attachment of osteoclast precursor cells to bone surfaces 33 . The beneficial effects of various anti-rheumatic agents on preventing deterioration of bone microarchitecture, as observed in our current study, are consistent with findings from previous research utilizing HR-pQCT. Notably, baricitinib treatment was shown to significantly enhance in trabecular vBMD 8 . Additionally, denosumab exhibited improvements across multiple parameters of bone microarchitecture compared to csDMARDs monotherapy 3 , 34 . A comprehensive comparison of anti-rheumatic agents, not only focusing on bone erosion but also considering their impact on bone microarchitecture, is essential for accurately evaluating their efficacy in managing rheumatoid arthritis. Previous clinical studies including phase 3 trials have demonstrated the superiority of abatacept over csDMARDs in regard to clinical response and synovitis 35 – 37 . However, in our present study, synovitis and clinical disease activity were improved by both treatments, with csDMARDs showing slightly superior numerical efficacy. Despite adjusting for baseline characteristics in our analysis, there remains a possibility that the following factors influenced clinical outcomes and synovial inflammation—i.e., our csDMARDs patients had shorter disease duration and more concomitant use of prednisolone, which could have contributed to a good clinical response and synovitis even in the csDMARDs group. The preventive effects against systemic bone loss, as evaluated by BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck, did not mirror the previous results on periarticular bone loss. The increase in BMD at the lumbar spine appeared to be numerically smaller, and the decline in BMD at the femoral neck to be greater, by abatacept treatment compared to csDMARDs treatment. These findings suggest that the impact on osteoclast activity by abatacept might be more pronounced at inflammation sites such as the periarticular region. However, because larger studies have reported an increase in BMD effects with abatacept compared to other biologic DMARDs and csDMARDs, it is essential to interpret our present results with caution 14 , 15 . Serum osteopontin level increased during abatacept treatment compared to treatment with csDMARDs. Osteopontin, a transformation-associated phosphoprotein, is intricately linked to bone metabolism and homeostasis. While there is still controversy regarding the effect of osteopontin on osteoblast, previous studies have suggested its role in promoting osteoblast proliferation and calcification induced by mechanical stress 38 . Additionally, other studies reported the promotion of the adhesion of MC3T3-E1/C4 osteoblastic cell by osteopontin, and that accompanied with high expression of Runx2, osteopontin promote bone remodeling and reduce bone loss in osteoporosis 39 – 41 . Conversely, osteopontin has been implicated in enhancing osteoclastogenesis, e.g., osteopontin affects the adhesion and spread of osteoclasts through PKCa/RhoA-Rac1 signaling pathway 42 . Despite its potential to enhance osteoclast function, the diverse effects of osteopontin raise the possibility that abatacept may augment bone mass through the increase of osteopontin. There are several limitations associated with this study. The most important limitation is the small sample size and short observation period. Additionally, a number of patients were unable to undergo the third HR-pQCT (at 12 months) mainly due to changes in treatment regimen. Nonetheless, leveraging HR-pQCT enabled us to elucidate a significant deterioration in bone microarchitecture with conventional treatment over 6 months, and suggested that abatacept is preferable to csDMARDs in terms of minimizing bone destruction. When planning this study, we calculated our sample size based on an an expectation that the number of erosions would be similar between the treatment groups. However, the actual number of patients with erosions in the csDMARDs group was smaller than anticipated, which is one reason why the sample size was smaller and there was no significant change regarding bone structure between treatment groups. Another potential limitation is the variation in background characteristics among the treatment groups. While we utilized mixed-effects models to mitigate confounding factors in the comparative analysis, there may still be residual effects stemming from these differences. The mean dose of concomitant oral steroid was higher, and age was younger in the csDMARDs group. Steroid influence bone metabolism, and considering that most of our enrolled patients were female, age may have largely influenced the results of DXA via an influence of menopause. In conclusion, this is the first study that investigated detailed changes of bone structure using HR-pQCT during abatacept treatment, with a comparison to csDMARDs. Our findings demonstrated that abatacept prevented progression of bone erosion, including new occurrence of bone erosion. Moreover, abatacept also prevented the worsening of bone strength. While statistical significance was not achieved in comparing abatacept to csDMARDs in terms of improvements in bone erosion and microarchitecture, the numerical trends favoring abatacept indicate its potential benefits. Specifically, abatacept demonstrated numerical improvements in bone erosion and mitigated the worsening of most parameters of bone microarchitecture compared to csDMARDs, suggesting its potential efficacy in inhibiting both bone erosion and microarchitectural deterioration. Abbreviations RA rheumatoid arthritis HR-pQCT High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography bDMARDs:biological disease-modifying antirheumatic dugs cs conventional synthetic CTLA-4 cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen4 BMD bone mineral density RANKL receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand IL interleukin ACR American College of Rheumatology EULAR European League against Rheumatism RF rheumatoid factor ACPA anti-citrullinated protein antibodies MRI magnetic resonance imaging DXA Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry Tb.vBMD trabecular volumetric bone mineral density BV/TV trabecular bone volume fraction Tb.N trabecular number Tb.Th trabecular thickness Tb.Sp trabecular separation JCR Japan College of Rheumatology US ultrasound GS:gray scale PD power Doppler MCP metacarpophalangeal IP interphalangeal PIP proximal interphalangeal RAMRIS rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score mTSS modified total Sharp score ITAC interferon inducible T-cell alpha chemoattractant MIP macrophage inflammatory protein DKK Dickkopf OPG osteoprotegerin OC osteocalcin OPN osteopontin SOST sclerostin DAS disease activity score ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate CDAI clinical disease activity index Declarations Ethical Approval and Consent to participate: This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Investigation and Ethics Committee at Nagasaki University. Patients gave their informed consent to be subjected to the protocol. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: Naoki Iwamoto and Atsushi Kawakami have received grant research support from Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd and Funding: This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. Author Contribution NI: Conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the article.KC: Conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of HR-pQCT data. NI, SS: Statistical analysis and interpretation of data.KC, KS, KW, NO: Analysis and interpretation of HR-pQCT data.ST: Collection and assembly of data. NI, NO, AO, TK, SK, MT: Analysis and interpretation of MRI, US and X-ray data.NI, KC, SS, KS, KW, NO, AO, TK, SK, MT, MO, AK: Analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. AK: Project supervision. All authors have given their final approval of the manuscript to be published as presented. Acknowledgement We thank Mami Ushiroda for data collection. References van den Bergh JP, et al. The clinical application of high-resolution peripheral computed tomography (HR-pQCT) in adults: state of the art and future directions. Osteoporos Int. 2021;32:1465–85. 10.1007/s00198-021-05999-z . Peters M, et al. Prospective Follow-Up of Cortical Interruptions, Bone Density, and Micro-structure Detected on HR-pQCT: A Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Healthy Subjects. Calcif Tissue Int. 2019;104:571–81. 10.1007/s00223-019-00523-2 . Iwamoto N, et al. Inhibition of bone erosion, determined by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) plus denosumab vs csDMARD therapy alone: an open-label, randomized, parallel-group study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:264. 10.1186/s13075-022-02957-w . Figueiredo CP, et al. Bone erosion in the 2nd metacarpophalangeal head: association with its bone mineral density by HR-pQCT in rheumatoid arthritis patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:109. 10.1186/s12891-021-03992-5 . Scharmga A, et al. Structural damage and inflammation on radiographs or magnetic resonance imaging are associated with cortical interruptions on high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography: a study in finger joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and healthy subjects. Scand J Rheumatol. 2018;47:431–9. 10.1080/03009742.2018.1424234 . Finzel S, et al. Comparison of the effects of tocilizumab monotherapy and adalimumab in combination with methotrexate on bone erosion repair in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1186–91. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214894 . Shimizu T, et al. Assessment of 3-month changes in bone microstructure under anti-TNFalpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19:222. 10.1186/s13075-017-1430-x . Simon D, et al. Baricitinib Improves Bone Properties and Biomechanics in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of the Prospective Interventional BARE BONE Trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023;75:1923–34. 10.1002/art.42617 . Schiff M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: two-year efficacy and safety findings from AMPLE trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:86–94. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203843 . Schiff M, et al. Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:1096–103. 10.1136/ard.2007.080002 . Kerschbaumer A, et al. Efficacy of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82:95–106. 10.1136/ard-2022-223365 . Kremer JM, et al. Long-term safety, efficacy and inhibition of radiographic progression with abatacept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: 3-year results from the AIM trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1826–30. 10.1136/ard.2010.139345 . Westhovens R, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:1870–7. 10.1136/ard.2008.101121 . Tada M, et al. Abatacept might increase bone mineral density at femoral neck for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: AIRTIGHT study. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38:777–84. 10.1007/s00296-017-3922-z . Chen MH, et al. Different Effects of Biologics on Systemic Bone Loss Protection in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Interim Analysis of a Three-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study. Front Immunol. 2021;12:783030. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.783030 . Kim KW, Kim HR, Kim BM, Cho ML, Lee SH. Th17 cytokines regulate osteoclastogenesis in rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Pathol. 2015;185:3011–24. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.07.017 . Aletaha D et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 62, 2569–2581, 10.1002/art.27584 (2010). Shiraishi K, et al. Analysis of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis using HR-pQCT: Development of a measurement algorithm and assessment of longitudinal changes. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0265833. 10.1371/journal.pone.0265833 . Nishino A, et al. Ultrasonographic Efficacy of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis From a Multicenter Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Prospective Cohort in Japan. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70:1719–26. 10.1002/acr.23551 . Lassere M, et al. OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 3: an international multicenter reliability study using the RA-MRI Score. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:1366–75. Ostergaard M, et al. An introduction to the EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):i3–7. 10.1136/ard.2004.031773 . van der Heijde D. How to read radiographs according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:743–5. Koga T, et al. Prognostic Factors Toward Clinically Relevant Radiographic Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Clinical Practice: A Japanese Multicenter, Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study for Achieving a Treat-to-Target Strategy. Med (Baltim). 2016;95:e3476. 10.1097/MD.0000000000003476 . Iwamoto N, et al. Association of denosumab with serum cytokines, chemokines, and bone-related factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study. Mod Rheumatol. 2024. 10.1093/mr/roae002 . Klose-Jensen R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and X-ray for classifying erosive rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022;61:963–73. 10.1093/rheumatology/keab446 . Adami G, et al. Changes in bone turnover markers and bone modulators during abatacept treatment. Sci Rep. 2023;13:17183. 10.1038/s41598-023-44374-2 . Roser-Page S, et al. CTLA-4Ig (abatacept) balances bone anabolic effects of T cells and Wnt-10b with antianabolic effects of osteoblastic sclerostin. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1415:21–33. 10.1111/nyas.13643 . Hoff M, Haugeberg G, Kvien TK. Hand bone loss as an outcome measure in established rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year observational study comparing cortical and total bone loss. Arthritis Res Ther. 2007;9:R81. 10.1186/ar2280 . Deodhar AA, Brabyn J, Pande I, Scott DL, Woolf AD. Hand bone densitometry in rheumatoid arthritis, a five year longitudinal study: an outcome measure and a prognostic marker. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:767–70. 10.1136/ard.62.8.767 . Guler-Yuksel M, et al. Changes in hand and generalised bone mineral density in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:330–6. 10.1136/ard.2007.086348 . Bozec A, et al. T cell costimulation molecules CD80/86 inhibit osteoclast differentiation by inducing the IDO/tryptophan pathway. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:235ra260. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3007764 . Okada H, et al. CTLA4-Ig Directly Inhibits Osteoclastogenesis by Interfering With Intracellular Calcium Oscillations in Bone Marrow Macrophages. J Bone Min Res. 2019;34:1744–52. 10.1002/jbmr.3754 . Matsuura Y, et al. In vivo visualisation of different modes of action of biological DMARDs inhibiting osteoclastic bone resorption. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:1219–25. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212880 . So H, et al. Effects of RANKL inhibition on promoting healing of bone erosion in rheumatoid arthritis using HR-pQCT: a 2-year, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:981–8. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-219846 . Conaghan PG, et al. Impact of intravenous abatacept on synovitis, osteitis and structural damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: the ASSET randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1287–94. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201611 . Kaine J, et al. Evaluation of abatacept administered subcutaneously in adults with active rheumatoid arthritis: impact of withdrawal and reintroduction on immunogenicity, efficacy and safety (phase Iiib ALLOW study). Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:38–44. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200344 . Wells AF, et al. Abatacept plus methotrexate provides incremental clinical benefits versus methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve radiographic nonprogression. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:2362–8. 10.3899/jrheum.110054 . Forsprecher J, Wang Z, Goldberg HA, Kaartinen MT. Transglutaminase-mediated oligomerization promotes osteoblast adhesive properties of osteopontin and bone sialoprotein. Cell Adh Migr. 2011;5:65–72. 10.4161/cam.5.1.13369 . Marycz K, et al. Nanohydroxyapatite (nHAp) Doped with Iron Oxide Nanoparticles (IO), miR-21 and miR-124 Under Magnetic Field Conditions Modulates Osteoblast Viability, Reduces Inflammation and Inhibits the Growth of Osteoclast - A Novel Concept for Osteoporosis Treatment: Part 1. Int J Nanomed. 2021;16:3429–56. 10.2147/IJN.S303412 . Lei C, Xueming H, Ruihang D. MLN64 deletion suppresses RANKL-induced osteoclastic differentiation and attenuates diabetic osteoporosis in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018;505:1228–35. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.10.007 . Bernards MT, Qin C, Ratner BD, Jiang S. Adhesion of MC3T3-E1 cells to bone sialoprotein and bone osteopontin specifically bound to collagen I. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;86:779–87. 10.1002/jbm.a.31650 . Walker CG, Dangaria S, Ito Y, Luan X, Diekwisch TG. Osteopontin is required for unloading-induced osteoclast recruitment and modulation of RANKL expression during tooth drift-associated bone remodeling, but not for super-eruption. Bone. 2010;47:1020–9. 10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.025 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files supplemantarytables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4691594","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":327746931,"identity":"a2ff2807-dbcc-465e-ba5b-f78b822e1fec","order_by":0,"name":"Naoki Iwamoto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Naoki","middleName":"","lastName":"Iwamoto","suffix":""},{"id":327746932,"identity":"c7083bc3-bdd5-411d-96ad-87bb399cb75b","order_by":1,"name":"Ko Chiba","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ko","middleName":"","lastName":"Chiba","suffix":""},{"id":327746933,"identity":"64f8aa56-2bb9-4982-b2cd-45ef9f371e37","order_by":2,"name":"Shuntaro Sato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shuntaro","middleName":"","lastName":"Sato","suffix":""},{"id":327746934,"identity":"ada10349-786b-41d3-88e6-8f947a72c457","order_by":3,"name":"Shigeki Tashiro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shigeki","middleName":"","lastName":"Tashiro","suffix":""},{"id":327746935,"identity":"d6b9514b-ee83-4d64-b90a-26eb91afb1b6","order_by":4,"name":"Kazuteru Shiraishi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kazuteru","middleName":"","lastName":"Shiraishi","suffix":""},{"id":327746936,"identity":"0534cba6-b96e-4e6d-95bf-1333a3ea3574","order_by":5,"name":"Kounosuke Watanabe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kounosuke","middleName":"","lastName":"Watanabe","suffix":""},{"id":327746937,"identity":"941c3309-2b0a-4028-a66d-e99174e6324e","order_by":6,"name":"Nozomi Ohki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nozomi","middleName":"","lastName":"Ohki","suffix":""},{"id":327746938,"identity":"7d2a8009-b097-43e8-97cf-9cba4e6f3ec7","order_by":7,"name":"Akitomo Okada","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Hospital Organization Nagasaki Medical Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Akitomo","middleName":"","lastName":"Okada","suffix":""},{"id":327746939,"identity":"84b3b40e-97ad-4dfc-b841-76f9e17df002","order_by":8,"name":"Tomohiro Koga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tomohiro","middleName":"","lastName":"Koga","suffix":""},{"id":327746940,"identity":"3a123f1a-358f-4be5-aabf-91d5fc9f5c9d","order_by":9,"name":"Shin-ya Kawashiri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shin-ya","middleName":"","lastName":"Kawashiri","suffix":""},{"id":327746941,"identity":"b0262dbb-b67f-4261-ae17-70e2f39cbd87","order_by":10,"name":"Mami Tamai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mami","middleName":"","lastName":"Tamai","suffix":""},{"id":327746942,"identity":"e9df6f82-690b-4e0d-841c-fbf078e667c6","order_by":11,"name":"Makoto Osaki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Makoto","middleName":"","lastName":"Osaki","suffix":""},{"id":327746943,"identity":"be7b4a0d-97b1-4ee1-85a1-2f0ec208b210","order_by":12,"name":"Atsushi Kawakami","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Atsushi","middleName":"","lastName":"Kawakami","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-05 10:29:56","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691594/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691594/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":62137252,"identity":"809a9dae-c540-4e4e-9512-3593c19859e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-09 16:31:40","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":965329,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA: \u003c/strong\u003eTime course of bone erosion volume of the 2-3 metacarpal over 12 months of abatacept and csDMARDs treatments. \u003cem\u003eSquare points\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ebars\u003c/em\u003erepresent means and standard deviations, respectively. B: Mean change from baseline in bone erosion volume of the 2-3 metacarpal head at 12 months. Error bars represents standard deviation.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4691594/v1/529f624b8160d284ff5b5fea.png"},{"id":62137250,"identity":"8934af72-e72e-4cdc-9269-8e18874b9fde","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-09 16:31:40","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":455373,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChanges in bone microarchitectures of the 2-3 metacarpal over 6 months of abatacept and csDMARDs treatments. \u003cem\u003eSquare points\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ebars\u003c/em\u003erepresent means and standard deviations, respectively. *†p\u0026lt;0.05 vs. baseline by the Wilcoxon signed rank test.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4691594/v1/42acf466599092fba0db364d.png"},{"id":62313170,"identity":"c2d2064d-0bcf-4c65-b131-54b127ad8d81","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-12 21:46:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2502582,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4691594/v1/f6f8ea3b-2556-4c9f-b9e6-b447bfe60f1c.pdf"},{"id":62137249,"identity":"2cb99f74-b62f-40b7-b8b5-3d82efa80298","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-09 16:31:40","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":35915,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"supplemantarytables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4691594/v1/1775b0a4174050b77739ce23.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"CTLA4-Ig exerts preferable effect for both bone erosion and bone microarchitecture in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a prospective, non-randomized two-group study using HR-pQCT","fulltext":[{"header":"Key Message","content":"\u003cp\u003eCTLA4-Ig inhibits not only bone erosion but also the deterioration of bone strength.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease principally effecting synovial joints and characterized by a distinctive pattern of bone and joint destruction. One of the crucial goals of treating RA is to prevent bone destruction, which can ultimately lead to joint damage and a decline in the quality of life, affecting everyday activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) is an advanced 3-dimensional imaging technique with superior sensitivity in assessing bone\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDue to its high resolution, HR-pQCT surpasses conventional methods such as X-ray or computed tomography in evaluating bone erosion. HR-pQCT allows independent measurement of specific parameters of bone erosion, such as width, depth, and volume, in addition to revealing the status of the bone microarchitecture. In previous studies, HR-pQCT has been used to detect peri-articular osteoporosis in RA and has provided detailed insights into the changes in bone erosion and microarchitecture throughout the clinical course of RA\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR3 CR4\" citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, few studies using HR-pQCT have focused on the association of bone structure with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and comparison with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs is even rarer\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbatacept is a soluble fusion protein of the extracellular domain of the human cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), which inhibits the activation of T lymphocytes by binding the CD80 and CD86 on the surface of antigen-presenting cells. Clinical trials have demonstrated that abatacept exhibits efficacy similar to other bDMARDs, leading treatment guidelines to recommend it on par with other bDMARDs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Several large studies have demonstrated that abatacept has an inhibitory effect on bone erosion progression\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, in these studies only conventional image modalities such as X-ray were used to analyze the bone erosions, and comprehensive investigations linking abatacept treatment with detailed periarticular osteoporosis remain lacking, despite observations of increased bone mineral density (BMD) with abatacept treatment\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Also, there are several subsets of CD4 T helper (Th) cells with different functions, such as Th1, Th2, Th17, and Tfh, and these have been suggested to play a role in RA activity. Indeed, the importance of these subsets was also confirmed by previously described clinical effects of abatacept. Among T-cell subsets, Th17 has been implicated in promoting bone destruction through its expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) via interleukin (IL)-17\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e. Conversely, cytokines such as IL-4 or interferon-γ that are produced by other Th subsets exert inhibitory effects on osteoclast differentiation. Consequently, the precise roles of T-cell subsets in synovitis and bone destruction in RA remain incompletely elucidated, with previous reports indicating conflicting effects on joint destruction by T-cell function or osteoclastic effects by T regs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, in this study, we used HR-pQCT to analyze the detailed changes in bone microarchitecture and other aspects of joint structure during abatacept treatment, and a multiplex assay to analyze the T-cell related factors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy design, patients and treatment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is a prospective non-randomized two-group exploratory study that assessed the association between abatacept treatment and bone microarchitecture using HR-pQCT. Patients were included who 1) fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for RA\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; 2) were administered no more than 7.5 mg prednisolone equivalent per day; 3) had not received any drugs for osteoporosis; and 4) had no history of administration with biologic or targeted synthetics DMARDs. Consecutive patients who met all these requirements and in whom treatment with abatacept or one of the newly introduced csDMARDs had been planned were enrolled. All patients were enrolled at the Nagasaki University Hospital. Written informed consent which was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nagasaki University (IRB approval no. 16092611) were obtained from all patients. We collected the data of all patients in each group at baseline, including age, sex, disease duration, positivity of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and concomitant medications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEfficacy endpoints\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary endpoint was the change from baseline in bone erosion detected by HR-pQCT in joints to be evaluated. Additionally, a co-primary endpoint was the change in bone microarchitecture. Secondary endpoints assessed through month 12 included synovitis evaluated by ultrasound; synovitis, bone erosion and osteitis assessed via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); BMD, evaluated using Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA); joint destruction, assessed by X-ray; serum biomarkers obtained through a multiplex bead assay; and clinical disease activity. Detailed information regarding the variables adapted to outcomes is described in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVariables to be assessed\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHigh-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR-pQCT (XtremeCT II, SCANCO Medical AG, Br\u0026uuml;ttisellen, Switzerland) of the second and third metacarpal bones (of the affected hand, the more severely affected hand [if both hands were affected], or the hand of the subject\u0026rsquo;s dominant arm [if both hands were unaffected or affected to equal extents]) was performed at months 0, 6 and 12 and bone erosion was evaluated as described previously\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition to bone erosion, the following indices of bone microarchitecture were estimated using HR-pQCT: trabecular volumetric bone mineral density (Tb.vBMD), trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular number (Tb.N), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), and trabecular separation (Tb.Sp).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUltrasound assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral Japan College of Rheumatology (JCR)-certified rheumatologists who were blinded to the clinical information and laboratory data performed musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) at months 0, 6 and 12. For correction of interobserver variability, the obtained US images was also evaluated among them, and discussed to reach a consensus. A systemic multiplanar gray scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) examination were performed in the following 22 joints: the bilateral wrists (intracarpal, radiocarpal and ulnocarpal recesses) and finger joints including the 1st -5th metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints, the 1st interphalangeal (IP) joint and the 2nd -5th proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints (dorsal recess) with the same scanner (Toshiba AplioXG, Canon i800) using a multifrequency linear transducer. Each joint was given a GS and PD score from 0 to 3 according to the US findings, as described previously.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMagnetic resonance imaging of wrists and finger joints\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMRIs of the of wrists and finger joints of the affected hand were acquired using 3T system (Sigma; General Electric Medial Systems, Milwaukee, WI) with an extremity coil at months 0, 6 and 12. Coronal T1-weighted spin-echo (repetition time[TR] 450, echo time [TE] 13) and STIR (TR 3000, TE 12, T1 160) images were acquired. The images were evaluated for osteitis, bone erosion, and synovitis according to the rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score (RAMRIS).\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The MRIs were scored by two independent experienced radiologists (MU, NO) who were blinded to the clinical data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBone mineral density measurement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDXA was performed to evaluate the BMD of the lumbar spine (L2-L4) and femoral neck at months 0, 6 and 12. A Discovery\u0026trade; Wi QDR densitometer (Hologic, Bedford, MA) was used for bone densitometry. Radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine were taken for pre-existing vertebral fractures and new fractures at the same time as BMD measurement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRadiographs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRadiographs of hands/wrists and feet were obtained at months 0, 6 and 12.Two readers (TK, AO) who were trained and certified by Prof. van der Heijde (Leiden University Medical Center) and blinded to the treatment and clinical status of patients independently reviewed and scored the images using the modified total Sharp score (mTSS), as described previously.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMultiplex bead assay\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe measured the concentrations of the biomarkers using serum stored at months 0, 6 and 12. We performed a multiplex cytokine/chemokine bead assay using MILLIPLEX MAP human Cytokine/Chemokine Magnetic Bead Panel 1-premixed 38 Plex (Millipore, Billerica, MA) kits as described previously.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e And for detection of following biomarkers related to T-cells and bone metabolism; Interferon Inducible T-Cell Alpha Chemoattractant (ITAC), macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-3α, IL-21, IL-23, Dickkopf (DKK)1, osteoprotegerin (OPG), osteocalcin (OC), osteopontin (OPN) and sclerostin (SOST), the custom multiplex bead assay was performed in parallel. The biomarkers that were frequently found to be at non-detectable levels were excluded from analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClinical assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe patients' clinical disease activity was assessed using the disease activity score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after enrollment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince this was an exploratory study and there were no previous data with which to gauge a sample size, a statistical sample size calculation was not performed. Therefore, based on feasibility, we set a target sample size of 40 patients, 20 in the abatacept group and 20 in the csDMARDs group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, we summarized and compared the baseline characteristics for each group. Continuous data were presented as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation (SD) and compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Categorical data were presented as number and percentage and compared using Fisher's exact test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we descriptively examined the actual values and changes from baseline for each outcome measure. The Adjusted mean between-group differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, ACPA, and baseline values of the outcome measures. RF was excluded from the adjusted variables because the same patients tested positive for both ACPA and RF. The random effects were the patients, and for the HR-pQCT data, which were available for each joint, the joint was also included. The between-group differences were estimated as the difference in the mean values for each group, and 95% confidence intervals were also estimated. P-values were calculated but not adjusted for multiplicity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor actual value of bone microarchitecture, and biomarker analysis, normal distribution of the data was confirmed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. And, The Student's paired t-test was utilized to identify statistically significant differences in the parameters of bone microarchitecture, whereas the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for non-parametric data. For compariosn of biomarker change, the Student's unpaired t-test was employed for parametric data, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data. As this study is exploratory, caution should be exercised when interpreting the P-values. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.3.2 or GraphPad prism software.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePatient disposition and baseline characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNineteen patients received abatacept and 22 patients received newly introduced csDMARDs in this study. Within the abatacept group, 2 patients discontinued treatment before the 6-month mark due to allergy or personal preference, and an additional 3 patients ceased abatacept therapy after 6 months due to inefficacy or adverse events (specifically, pneumonia and leukopenia). Within the csDMARDs group, 2 patients withdrew consent before the 6-month period, and an additional 6 patients discontinued treatment after 6 months: 4 due to worsening arthritis that necessitated bDMARDs and 2 due to withdrawal of consent. All other patients completed the 12-month observation period while receiving either abatacept or csDMARDs treatment. Finally, 2 patients from the abatacept group were excluded due to unanalyzable HR-pQCT results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur analysis thus focused on 15 patients from the abatacept group and 20 patients from the csDMARDs group who underwent HR-pQCT scans at least twice, once at baseline and again at the 6-month mark. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the baseline demographic and disease characteristics of the patients. The abatacept group exhibited higher age, longer disease duration and less concomitant oral steroid dose as compared with the csDMARDs group. Other baseline characteristics, including sex, ACPA/RF positivity and disease activity, were comparable between the two treatment groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical characteristics of the study population\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbatacept\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecsDMARDs\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 (80.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17 (85.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge, years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuration of RA, years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecsDMARDs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMTX:18,TAC:1\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSASP:1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcomitant MTX use, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (46.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcomitant oral steroid use, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (26.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (35.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.721\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean oral steroid dose (mg/day)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eACPA positive, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12/13 (92.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14/20 (70.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.198\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRF positive, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12/13 (92.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14/20 (70.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.198\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDAS28-ESR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.593\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCDAI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.913\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eData are mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eRA\u003c/em\u003e rheumatoid arthritis, \u003cem\u003ecsDMARDs\u003c/em\u003e conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, \u003cem\u003eMTX\u003c/em\u003e methotrexate, \u003cem\u003eACPA\u003c/em\u003e anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, \u003cem\u003eRF\u003c/em\u003e rheumatoid factor, \u003cem\u003eDAS\u003c/em\u003e disease activity score, \u003cem\u003eESR\u003c/em\u003e erythrocyte sedimentation rate, \u003cem\u003eCDAI\u003c/em\u003e clinical disease activity index\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChanges in bone erosion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eChanges in bone erosions at the 2nd and 3rd metacarpal heads were assessed by HR-pQCT. At baseline, there were 16 and 9 erosions in the abatacept and csDMARDs groups, respectively. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the alteration in erosion volume, as quantified by HR-pQCT. The mean change from baseline (SD) in the volume of bone erosion as measured by HR-pQCT at 12 months after initiating each treatment was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.14 (2.49) mm\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e in abatacept group vs. -0.26 (0.9) mm\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e in the csDMARDs group (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). After adjusting for age, sex, concomitant use of steroid, disease duration, and ACPA, the adjusted mean difference between the two groups was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.86 mm\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (95%CI: -4.28, 0.56; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.122). Similar results were observed for the adjusted mean difference between the groups regarding the depth of bone erosion (change from baseline to month 12: -0.02 mm; 95%CI: -0.30, 0.27; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.890) and width of bone erosion (change from baseline to month 12: -0.09 mm; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.17; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.476).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChange from baseline in bone erosion parameters evaluated by HR-pQCT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbatacept (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecsDMARDs (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted mean difference\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Abatacept \u0026ndash; csDMARDs) [95%CI], P value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean change from baseline (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean change from baseline (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBone erosion-volume, mm\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.77 (2.56)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.36 (1.13)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.97 [-3.07, 1.13], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.337\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.14 (2.49)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.26 (0.90)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.86 [-4.28, 0.56], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.122\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBone erosion-depth, mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03 (0.23)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.05 (0.14)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02 [-0.20, 0.25], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.830\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.04 (0.30)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.09 (0.18)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.02 [-0.30, 0.27, P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.890\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBone erosion- width, mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.06 (0.21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01 (0.15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.11 [-0.34, 0.11], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.293\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.16 (0.38)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.22 (0.41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.09 [-0.35, 0.17], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.476\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eThe adjusted mean differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, RF, and baseline values of the outcome measures. The random effects were the patients and each joint.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e standard deviation, \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e confidence interval\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to achieving a better improvement in the mean quantification of erosion volume, the abatacept group also demonstrated a greater number of improvements in erosion volume compared to the baseline (Supplemental Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). In the abatacept group, 6 erosions exhibited improvement compared to baseline, whereas in the csDMARDs group only 3 erosions showed improvement. Furthermore, the csDMARDs group exhibited a higher frequency of newly appearing erosions compared to the abatacept group. Over a 12-month period, 5 erosions emerged in the csDMARDs group, while only 1 erosion appeared in the abatacept group. These findings suggest that the csDMARDs treatment may be associated with a higher risk of developing new erosions in comparison to the abatacept treatment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChanges in bone microarchitecture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to assessing bone erosion, bone microarchitecture was evaluated using HR-pQCT. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the findings regarding changes in bone microarchitecture. The mean changes (SD) in periarticular vBMD of the 2\u0026ndash;3 metacarpal heads, as measured by HR-pQCT, were \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.63 (13.43) mg/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in the abatacept group and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5.26 (21.57) mg/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in the csDMARDs group from baseline to month 12. After adjustment, the mean difference between the two groups was 1.22 mg/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e (95%CI: -7.37, 9.81; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.778). Similar trends were observed in adjusted mean difference of BV/TV, Tb.N and Tb.Sp, with changes of 0.38%, 0.021/mm, and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;15.29 \u0026micro;m, respectively. However, there was a contrasting result for Tb.Th, where the adjusted mean difference between the two groups was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.45 \u0026micro;m. Although the adjusted mean difference between two groups was not significantly different, the actual values of several components of bone microarchitectures, such as vBMD and BV/TV, significantly worsened at 6 months in the csDMARDs group (we were only able to compare mean values of each time point up to 6 months, as not all patients had completed the study by the 12-month mark), whereas in the abatacept group, there was no deterioration observed at 6 months (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). These results suggest that abatacept shows a more favorable association with bone microarchitecture compared to csDMARDs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChange from baseline in bone microarchitecture parameters evaluated by HR-pQCT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbatacept (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecsDMARDs (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted mean difference\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Abatacept \u0026ndash; csDMARDs) [95%CI], P value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean change from baseline (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean change from baseline (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTb.vBMD, mg/cm\u0026sup3;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.89 (10.79)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-7.90 (19.56)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.46 [-3.97, 10.88], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.355\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.63 (13.43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-5.26 (21.57)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22 [-7.37, 9.81] P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.778\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBV/TV, %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.15 (1.71)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.15 (2.81)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62 [-0.46, 1.71], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.31 (1.99)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.86 (2.91)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38 [-0.87, 1.63], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.548\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTb.N, 1/mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.03 (0.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.02 (0.08)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02 [-0.02, 0.06], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.368\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.01 (0.07)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.01 (0.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02 [-0.03, 0.07], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.399\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTb.Sp, \u0026micro;m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.26 (26.26)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.38 (37.75)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-14.75 [-32.49, 2.99], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.101\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.53 (23.33)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.44 (46.60)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-15.29 [-35.49, 4.91], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.136\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTb.Th, \u0026micro;m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.3 (5.64)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-3.38 (8.17)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.88 [-2.94, 4.70], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.645\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.89 (8.02)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.75 (9.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.45 [-4.77, 3.88], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.837\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eThe Adjusted mean differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, RF, and baseline values of the outcome measures. The random effects were the patients.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003ecsDMARDs\u003c/em\u003e conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, \u003cem\u003eTb.vBMD\u003c/em\u003e trabecular volumetric bone mineral density, \u003cem\u003eBV/TV\u003c/em\u003e trabecular bone volume fraction, \u003cem\u003eTb.N\u003c/em\u003e trabecular number, \u003cem\u003eTb. Sp\u003c/em\u003e trabecular separation, \u003cem\u003eTb.Th\u003c/em\u003e trabecular thickness, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e standard deviation, \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e confidence interval\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClinical response\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe clinical response was comparable between the two groups throughout the observation period (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). In the abatacept group, the mean changes (SD) of DAS28-ESR and CDAI from baseline to month 12 were \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.54 (1.44) and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;11.65 (8.79), respectively. The corresponding values in the csDMARDs group were \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.72 (1.55) and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;13.92 (11.11), respectively. The differences in adjusted mean change from baseline to month 12 between the two groups were not significant. For DAS28-ESR, the adjusted mean difference was 0.01 (95%CI: -0.92, 0.94; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.986). Similarly, for CDAI, the adjusted mean difference was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.5 (95%CI: -6.09, 5.08; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.858), indicating no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical response.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChange from baseline in clinical evaluations and other secondary endpoints evaluated by other imaging modalities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbatacept (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecsDMARDs (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted mean difference\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Abatacept \u0026ndash; csDMARDs) [95%CI], P value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean change from baseline (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean change from baseline (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDAS28-ESR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.05 (1.20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.54 (1.41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35 [-0.58, 1.28], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.452\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.54 (1.44)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.72 (1.55)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01 [-0.92, 0.94], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.986\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCDAI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-10.00 (11.18)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-12.74 (9.45)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.66 [-3.55, 6.86], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.529\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-11.65 (8.79)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-13.92 (11.11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.50 [-6.09, 5.08], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.858\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePD score in both hands by musculoskeletal ultrasound\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.9 (5.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-4.2 (8.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.65 [-4.02, 2.72], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.695\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-3.6 (4.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-6.4 (11.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03 [-3.39, 3.45], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.986\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PD score in both hands by musculoskeletal ultrasound\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-6.0 (9.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-8.6 (16.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.59 [-6.09, 7.28], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.857\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-6.8 (6.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-10.6 (18.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.50 [-5.32, 8.33], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.657\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRAMRIS total score by MRI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-8.1 (11.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-3.7 (13.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.59 [-12.54, 11.35], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.921\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-10.2 (9.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-7.6 (19.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.12 [-10.67, 14.91], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.740\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emTSS by X-ray\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7 (1.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.52 [-2.62, 3.66], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.739\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.2 (7.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.08 [-5.41, 1.25], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.215\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLumbar spine, %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.71 (2.64)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47 (3.67)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.35 [-5.34, 2.65], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.17 (2.87)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.82 (6.07)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.87 [-5.70, 1.95], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.326\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemoral neck. %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.22 (1.93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.36 (2.53)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.75 [-3.46, 1.96], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.574\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.94 (2.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.22 (3.35)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.59 [-5.24, 0.05], P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.054\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eThe adjusted mean differences at each time point were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The objective variable was the change from baseline, and the fixed effects were group, time point, multiple term between group and time point, and adjustment variables including age, sex, steroid administration status, rheumatoid arthritis disease duration, RF, and baseline values of the outcome measures. The random effects were the patients.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003ecsDMARDs\u003c/em\u003e conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, \u003cem\u003eDAS\u003c/em\u003e disease activity score, \u003cem\u003eESR\u003c/em\u003e erythrocyte sedimentation rate, \u003cem\u003eCDAI\u003c/em\u003e clinical disease activity index, \u003cem\u003ePD\u003c/em\u003e power Doppler, \u003cem\u003eGS\u003c/em\u003e gray scale, \u003cem\u003eRAMRIS\u003c/em\u003e rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score, \u003cem\u003eMRI\u003c/em\u003e magnetic resonance imaging, \u003cem\u003emTSS\u003c/em\u003e modified total Sharp score, \u003cem\u003eBMD\u003c/em\u003e bone mineral density, \u003cem\u003eDXA\u003c/em\u003e Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e standard deviation, \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e confidence interval\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSynovitis and osteitis detected by US and MRI\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe changes in RAMRIS total score and US synovitis score from baseline to month 12 are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. Notably, both scores demonstrated improvement in both groups. The adjusted between-group differences in the change in total RAMRIS score by MRI and PD score by US from baseline to month 12 were found to be 2.12 (95%CI: -10.67, 14.91; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.740) and 0.03 (95%CI: -3.39, 3.45; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.986), respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRadiographic progression\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the synovitis and osteitis changes mentioned above, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e shows the changes in radiographic bone destruction measured by mTSS throughout observation period. While no significant differences were observed, the csDMARDs group showed greater progression in bone erosion compared to the abatacept group. The mean change (SD) in total score from baseline to 12 months was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.2 (7.0) in the abatacept group, whereas it amounted to 1.4 (1.7) in the cs DMARDs group (the adjusted between-group difference in the change in TSS from baseline to month 12 was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.08 (95%CI: -5.41, 1.25; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.215).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSystemic bone mass change\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe association between abatacept treatment and systemic bone metabolism was also evaluated in this study. The percent changes from baseline to 6 and 12 months in BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck measured by DXA are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. At the 12-month mark, there was an increase in areal BMD at the lumbar spine compared to baseline. Notably, this increase was numerically higher in the csDMARDs group compared to the abatacept group: 1.82% (6.07) vs. 0.17% (2.87), respectively. Conversely, the areal BMD at the femoral neck showed a decrease at 12 months from baseline in both groups. Similarly to the lumbar spine, the rate of decrease was lower in the csDMARDs group, which exhibited a decline of only \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.22% (3.35), compared to the abatacept group's larger decrease of -2.94%. After adjustment, the mean differences between the two groups were \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.87 (95%CI: -5.70, 1.95; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.326) in the lumbar spine and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.59 (95%CI: -5.24, 0.05; P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.054) in the femoral neck.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBiomarker\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eChanges in serum humoral factors related to inflammation, T-cells and bone metabolism were evaluable in 24 of the enrolled patients (abatacept group: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9; csDMARDs group: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15). For most of the evaluated humoral factors, changes over the treatment period were comparable between the abatacept and csDMARDs group, with only the osteopontin level exhibiting a significantly greater increased from baseline at both 6 and 12 months in the abatacept group compared to the csDMARDs group (Supplemental Table S2). The mean change in osteopontin level from baseline to month 12 was 383.9 pg/mL in the abatacept group, whereas that were \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;273.0 pg/mL in the csDMARDs group (the between-group difference in the change in serum ostepontin levels from baseline to month 12 was 656.9 (95%CI: 163.0, 1058.0; P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.005).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, HR-pQCT enabled a detailed analysis of bone structure changes during abatacept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The findings indicate that abatacept exhibits a greater inhibitory effect on the progression of bone erosion and deterioration of bone quality compared to treatment with csDMARDs. After 1 year of treatment, the mean bone erosion volume decreased, and although not statistically significant, the reduction in erosion volume was notably greater compared to that by csDMARDs treatment. Furthermore, abatacept demonstrated superior efficacy in preventing the occurrence of new bone erosions for one year, i.e., only one new erosion was detected. Several previous researches have indicated that abatacept prevents bone erosion in RA\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, results of most of these studies come from radiological analyses, and conventional radiography is not sensitive enough to detect early structural change. Indeed, one study reported that the sensitivity and specificity of conventional radiography for RA patients in whom bone erosion was detected by HR-pQCT were 85% and 38%, respectively\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This more precise detection method was better able to detect differences in the bone erosion progression rate between abatacept and csDMARDs compared with previous reports. Moreover, bone repair could also be observed by using HR-pQCT, mean bone erosion volume decreased with superiority in abatacept group. This result suggested that abatacept affected not only inhibition of bone erosion but also bone formation. Giovanni et al. reported that serum bone formation markers (B-ALP, PTH and P1NP) were increased during abatacept treatment\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. And CTLA4-Ig affect to bone formation with relation of Wnt/β-Catenin signal have been reportedl\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the present study almost all parameters of bone microarchitecture were worsened in both groups, but such worsening was less pronounced by abatacept treatment than by csDMARDs treatment. In the analysis of actual value, though the analysis could be performed up to 6 months due to treatment discontinuation, the csDMARDs group exhibited a statistically significant worsening, whereas such deterioration was not observed in the abatacept group. Periarticular osteoporosis as pre-exist of bone erosion have been reported\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR29\" citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In a study that assessed the efficacy of infliximab, progression in erosions was independently associated with increased bone mineral density loss in the hands after 1 year\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These results are consistent with our study, as we found that csDMARDs treatment worsened various parameters of bone microarchitecture, including vBMD, and that new bone erosion was more prevalent in the csDMARDs group compared to the abatacept group. One possible reason for these favorable effects on periarticular bone as compared to csDMARDs treatment might have been related to the actions of osteoclasts. Bozec et al. revealed that CTLA4-Ig directly inhibited osteoclast differentiation by inducing the IDO pathway,\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and other report revealed that interfering with intracellular calcium oscillations resulted in inhibition of osteoclast differentiation by CTLA4-Ig.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e In addition to osteoclastogenesis, an \u003cem\u003ein vivo\u003c/em\u003e imaging experiment revealed that CTLA4-Ig prevented attachment of osteoclast precursor cells to bone surfaces\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The beneficial effects of various anti-rheumatic agents on preventing deterioration of bone microarchitecture, as observed in our current study, are consistent with findings from previous research utilizing HR-pQCT. Notably, baricitinib treatment was shown to significantly enhance in trabecular vBMD\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, denosumab exhibited improvements across multiple parameters of bone microarchitecture compared to csDMARDs monotherapy\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A comprehensive comparison of anti-rheumatic agents, not only focusing on bone erosion but also considering their impact on bone microarchitecture, is essential for accurately evaluating their efficacy in managing rheumatoid arthritis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious clinical studies including phase 3 trials have demonstrated the superiority of abatacept over csDMARDs in regard to clinical response and synovitis\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR36\" citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, in our present study, synovitis and clinical disease activity were improved by both treatments, with csDMARDs showing slightly superior numerical efficacy. Despite adjusting for baseline characteristics in our analysis, there remains a possibility that the following factors influenced clinical outcomes and synovial inflammation\u0026mdash;i.e., our csDMARDs patients had shorter disease duration and more concomitant use of prednisolone, which could have contributed to a good clinical response and synovitis even in the csDMARDs group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe preventive effects against systemic bone loss, as evaluated by BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck, did not mirror the previous results on periarticular bone loss. The increase in BMD at the lumbar spine appeared to be numerically smaller, and the decline in BMD at the femoral neck to be greater, by abatacept treatment compared to csDMARDs treatment. These findings suggest that the impact on osteoclast activity by abatacept might be more pronounced at inflammation sites such as the periarticular region. However, because larger studies have reported an increase in BMD effects with abatacept compared to other biologic DMARDs and csDMARDs, it is essential to interpret our present results with caution\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSerum osteopontin level increased during abatacept treatment compared to treatment with csDMARDs. Osteopontin, a transformation-associated phosphoprotein, is intricately linked to bone metabolism and homeostasis. While there is still controversy regarding the effect of osteopontin on osteoblast, previous studies have suggested its role in promoting osteoblast proliferation and calcification induced by mechanical stress\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, other studies reported the promotion of the adhesion of MC3T3-E1/C4 osteoblastic cell by osteopontin, and that accompanied with high expression of Runx2, osteopontin promote bone remodeling and reduce bone loss in osteoporosis\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR40\" citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Conversely, osteopontin has been implicated in enhancing osteoclastogenesis, e.g., osteopontin affects the adhesion and spread of osteoclasts through PKCa/RhoA-Rac1 signaling pathway\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite its potential to enhance osteoclast function, the diverse effects of osteopontin raise the possibility that abatacept may augment bone mass through the increase of osteopontin.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are several limitations associated with this study. The most important limitation is the small sample size and short observation period. Additionally, a number of patients were unable to undergo the third HR-pQCT (at 12 months) mainly due to changes in treatment regimen. Nonetheless, leveraging HR-pQCT enabled us to elucidate a significant deterioration in bone microarchitecture with conventional treatment over 6 months, and suggested that abatacept is preferable to csDMARDs in terms of minimizing bone destruction. When planning this study, we calculated our sample size based on an an expectation that the number of erosions would be similar between the treatment groups. However, the actual number of patients with erosions in the csDMARDs group was smaller than anticipated, which is one reason why the sample size was smaller and there was no significant change regarding bone structure between treatment groups. Another potential limitation is the variation in background characteristics among the treatment groups. While we utilized mixed-effects models to mitigate confounding factors in the comparative analysis, there may still be residual effects stemming from these differences. The mean dose of concomitant oral steroid was higher, and age was younger in the csDMARDs group. Steroid influence bone metabolism, and considering that most of our enrolled patients were female, age may have largely influenced the results of DXA via an influence of menopause.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this is the first study that investigated detailed changes of bone structure using HR-pQCT during abatacept treatment, with a comparison to csDMARDs. Our findings demonstrated that abatacept prevented progression of bone erosion, including new occurrence of bone erosion. Moreover, abatacept also prevented the worsening of bone strength. While statistical significance was not achieved in comparing abatacept to csDMARDs in terms of improvements in bone erosion and microarchitecture, the numerical trends favoring abatacept indicate its potential benefits. Specifically, abatacept demonstrated numerical improvements in bone erosion and mitigated the worsening of most parameters of bone microarchitecture compared to csDMARDs, suggesting its potential efficacy in inhibiting both bone erosion and microarchitectural deterioration.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erheumatoid arthritis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eHR-pQCT\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography bDMARDs:biological disease-modifying antirheumatic dugs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ecs\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003econventional synthetic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCTLA-4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eBMD\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ebone mineral density\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRANKL\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ereceptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIL\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003einterleukin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eACR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmerican College of Rheumatology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eEULAR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEuropean League against Rheumatism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRF\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erheumatoid factor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eACPA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eanti-citrullinated protein antibodies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eMRI\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emagnetic resonance imaging\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eDXA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDual-energy X-ray absorptiometry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTb.vBMD\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003etrabecular volumetric bone mineral density\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eBV/TV\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003etrabecular bone volume fraction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTb.N\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003etrabecular number\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTb.Th\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003etrabecular thickness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTb.Sp\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003etrabecular separation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eJCR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapan College of Rheumatology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eUS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eultrasound GS:gray scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePD\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epower Doppler\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eMCP\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emetacarpophalangeal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIP\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003einterphalangeal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePIP\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eproximal interphalangeal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRAMRIS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003emTSS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emodified total Sharp score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eITAC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003einterferon inducible T-cell alpha chemoattractant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eMIP\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emacrophage inflammatory protein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eDKK\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDickkopf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eOPG\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eosteoprotegerin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eOC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eosteocalcin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eOPN\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eosteopontin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSOST\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esclerostin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eDAS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edisease activity score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eESR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eerythrocyte sedimentation rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCDAI\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eclinical disease activity index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthical Approval and Consent to participate:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Investigation and Ethics Committee at Nagasaki University. Patients gave their informed consent to be subjected to the protocol.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNaoki Iwamoto and Atsushi Kawakami have received grant research support from Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd and\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNI: Conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the article.KC: Conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of HR-pQCT data. NI, SS: Statistical analysis and interpretation of data.KC, KS, KW, NO: Analysis and interpretation of HR-pQCT data.ST: Collection and assembly of data. NI, NO, AO, TK, SK, MT: Analysis and interpretation of MRI, US and X-ray data.NI, KC, SS, KS, KW, NO, AO, TK, SK, MT, MO, AK: Analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. AK: Project supervision. All authors have given their final approval of the manuscript to be published as presented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe thank Mami Ushiroda for data collection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan den Bergh JP, et al. The clinical application of high-resolution peripheral computed tomography (HR-pQCT) in adults: state of the art and future directions. Osteoporos Int. 2021;32:1465\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s00198-021-05999-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00198-021-05999-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeters M, et al. Prospective Follow-Up of Cortical Interruptions, Bone Density, and Micro-structure Detected on HR-pQCT: A Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Healthy Subjects. Calcif Tissue Int. 2019;104:571\u0026ndash;81. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s00223-019-00523-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00223-019-00523-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIwamoto N, et al. Inhibition of bone erosion, determined by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) plus denosumab vs csDMARD therapy alone: an open-label, randomized, parallel-group study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:264. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s13075-022-02957-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s13075-022-02957-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFigueiredo CP, et al. Bone erosion in the 2nd metacarpophalangeal head: association with its bone mineral density by HR-pQCT in rheumatoid arthritis patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:109. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12891-021-03992-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12891-021-03992-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScharmga A, et al. Structural damage and inflammation on radiographs or magnetic resonance imaging are associated with cortical interruptions on high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography: a study in finger joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and healthy subjects. Scand J Rheumatol. 2018;47:431\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03009742.2018.1424234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03009742.2018.1424234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFinzel S, et al. Comparison of the effects of tocilizumab monotherapy and adalimumab in combination with methotrexate on bone erosion repair in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1186\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214894\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214894\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShimizu T, et al. Assessment of 3-month changes in bone microstructure under anti-TNFalpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19:222. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s13075-017-1430-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s13075-017-1430-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimon D, et al. Baricitinib Improves Bone Properties and Biomechanics in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of the Prospective Interventional BARE BONE Trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023;75:1923\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/art.42617\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/art.42617\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchiff M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: two-year efficacy and safety findings from AMPLE trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:86\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203843\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203843\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchiff M, et al. Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:1096\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ard.2007.080002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ard.2007.080002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKerschbaumer A, et al. Efficacy of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82:95\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ard-2022-223365\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ard-2022-223365\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKremer JM, et al. Long-term safety, efficacy and inhibition of radiographic progression with abatacept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: 3-year results from the AIM trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1826\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ard.2010.139345\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ard.2010.139345\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWesthovens R, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:1870\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ard.2008.101121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ard.2008.101121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTada M, et al. Abatacept might increase bone mineral density at femoral neck for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: AIRTIGHT study. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38:777\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s00296-017-3922-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00296-017-3922-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen MH, et al. Different Effects of Biologics on Systemic Bone Loss Protection in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Interim Analysis of a Three-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study. Front Immunol. 2021;12:783030. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fimmu.2021.783030\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fimmu.2021.783030\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim KW, Kim HR, Kim BM, Cho ML, Lee SH. Th17 cytokines regulate osteoclastogenesis in rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Pathol. 2015;185:3011\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.07.017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.07.017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAletaha D et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. \u003cem\u003eArthritis Rheum\u003c/em\u003e 62, 2569\u0026ndash;2581, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/art.27584\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/art.27584\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShiraishi K, et al. Analysis of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis using HR-pQCT: Development of a measurement algorithm and assessment of longitudinal changes. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0265833. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1371/journal.pone.0265833\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0265833\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNishino A, et al. Ultrasonographic Efficacy of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis From a Multicenter Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Prospective Cohort in Japan. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70:1719\u0026ndash;26. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/acr.23551\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/acr.23551\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLassere M, et al. OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 3: an international multicenter reliability study using the RA-MRI Score. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:1366\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstergaard M, et al. An introduction to the EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):i3\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ard.2004.031773\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ard.2004.031773\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan der Heijde D. How to read radiographs according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:743\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoga T, et al. Prognostic Factors Toward Clinically Relevant Radiographic Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Clinical Practice: A Japanese Multicenter, Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study for Achieving a Treat-to-Target Strategy. Med (Baltim). 2016;95:e3476. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1097/MD.0000000000003476\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/MD.0000000000003476\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIwamoto N, et al. Association of denosumab with serum cytokines, chemokines, and bone-related factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study. Mod Rheumatol. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/mr/roae002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/mr/roae002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlose-Jensen R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and X-ray for classifying erosive rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022;61:963\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/rheumatology/keab446\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/rheumatology/keab446\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdami G, et al. Changes in bone turnover markers and bone modulators during abatacept treatment. Sci Rep. 2023;13:17183. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1038/s41598-023-44374-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-023-44374-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoser-Page S, et al. CTLA-4Ig (abatacept) balances bone anabolic effects of T cells and Wnt-10b with antianabolic effects of osteoblastic sclerostin. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1415:21\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/nyas.13643\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/nyas.13643\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoff M, Haugeberg G, Kvien TK. Hand bone loss as an outcome measure in established rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year observational study comparing cortical and total bone loss. Arthritis Res Ther. 2007;9:R81. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/ar2280\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/ar2280\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeodhar AA, Brabyn J, Pande I, Scott DL, Woolf AD. Hand bone densitometry in rheumatoid arthritis, a five year longitudinal study: an outcome measure and a prognostic marker. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:767\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ard.62.8.767\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ard.62.8.767\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuler-Yuksel M, et al. Changes in hand and generalised bone mineral density in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:330\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ard.2007.086348\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ard.2007.086348\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBozec A, et al. T cell costimulation molecules CD80/86 inhibit osteoclast differentiation by inducing the IDO/tryptophan pathway. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:235ra260. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1126/scitranslmed.3007764\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/scitranslmed.3007764\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOkada H, et al. CTLA4-Ig Directly Inhibits Osteoclastogenesis by Interfering With Intracellular Calcium Oscillations in Bone Marrow Macrophages. J Bone Min Res. 2019;34:1744\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/jbmr.3754\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jbmr.3754\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatsuura Y, et al. In vivo visualisation of different modes of action of biological DMARDs inhibiting osteoclastic bone resorption. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:1219\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212880\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212880\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSo H, et al. Effects of RANKL inhibition on promoting healing of bone erosion in rheumatoid arthritis using HR-pQCT: a 2-year, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:981\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-219846\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-219846\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConaghan PG, et al. Impact of intravenous abatacept on synovitis, osteitis and structural damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: the ASSET randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1287\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201611\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201611\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaine J, et al. Evaluation of abatacept administered subcutaneously in adults with active rheumatoid arthritis: impact of withdrawal and reintroduction on immunogenicity, efficacy and safety (phase Iiib ALLOW study). Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:38\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200344\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200344\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWells AF, et al. Abatacept plus methotrexate provides incremental clinical benefits versus methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve radiographic nonprogression. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:2362\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3899/jrheum.110054\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3899/jrheum.110054\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForsprecher J, Wang Z, Goldberg HA, Kaartinen MT. Transglutaminase-mediated oligomerization promotes osteoblast adhesive properties of osteopontin and bone sialoprotein. Cell Adh Migr. 2011;5:65\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4161/cam.5.1.13369\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4161/cam.5.1.13369\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarycz K, et al. Nanohydroxyapatite (nHAp) Doped with Iron Oxide Nanoparticles (IO), miR-21 and miR-124 Under Magnetic Field Conditions Modulates Osteoblast Viability, Reduces Inflammation and Inhibits the Growth of Osteoclast - A Novel Concept for Osteoporosis Treatment: Part 1. Int J Nanomed. 2021;16:3429\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2147/IJN.S303412\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2147/IJN.S303412\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLei C, Xueming H, Ruihang D. MLN64 deletion suppresses RANKL-induced osteoclastic differentiation and attenuates diabetic osteoporosis in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018;505:1228\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.10.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.10.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernards MT, Qin C, Ratner BD, Jiang S. Adhesion of MC3T3-E1 cells to bone sialoprotein and bone osteopontin specifically bound to collagen I. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;86:779\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/jbm.a.31650\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jbm.a.31650\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalker CG, Dangaria S, Ito Y, Luan X, Diekwisch TG. Osteopontin is required for unloading-induced osteoclast recruitment and modulation of RANKL expression during tooth drift-associated bone remodeling, but not for super-eruption. Bone. 2010;47:1020\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Rheumatoid arthritis, CTLA4-Ig, Abatacept, csDMARDs, bone microarchitecture, bone erosion, Hr-pQCT","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691594/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691594/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjective: \u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;This exploratory study aimed to examine the impact of abatacept treatment on bone structure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods: \u003c/strong\u003eRA patients initiating either abatacept or newly introduced csDMARDs were enrolled in this prospective, non-randomized, two-group study. Bone structure in the 2nd and 3rd metacarpal heads was assessed using HR-pQCT at 0, 6, and 12 months after enrollment. Synovitis was evaluated using musculoskeletal ultrasound and MRI. The adjusted mean between-group differences (abatacept–csDMARDs group) were estimated using a mixed-effect model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eThirty-five patients (abatacept group: n=15; csDMARDs group: n=20) were analyzed. Changes in erosion volume, depth and width were numerically smaller in the abatacept group compared to the csDMARDs group (adjusted mean between-group differences: -1.86 mm³, -0.02 mm, and -0.09 mm, respectively). Over a 12-month period, 5 erosions emerged in the csDMARDs group, while only 1 erosion appeared in the abatacept group. Compared to csDMARDs, abatacept better preserved bone microarchitecture; several components of bone microarchitecture were significantly worsened at 6 months in the csDMARDs group, but were not deteriorated at 6 months in the abatacept group. Changes in synovitis scores were similar between the two treatment groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions: \u003c/strong\u003eOur results indicate that abatacept prevented the progression of bone erosion including new occurrence, and also prevented worsening of bone strength independently with synovitis compared to csDMARDs including MTX. Thus, abatacept treatment may provide benefits not only in inhibiting the progress of bone erosion but also in preventing bone microarchitectural deterioration.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"CTLA4-Ig exerts preferable effect for both bone erosion and bone microarchitecture in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a prospective, non-randomized two-group study using HR-pQCT","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-09 16:31:35","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691594/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c72be641-1b00-4bf4-acca-e4dc06216fab","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 9th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-08-16T10:53:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-09 16:31:35","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4691594","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4691594","identity":"rs-4691594","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}