Evidence for early disease-modifying drugs in rheumatoid arthritis

Some research evidence supports early aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using combination therapy with two or more disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) plus steroids, or even DMARDs plus an anti-TNF. By contrast, conservatively delayed DMARD monotherapy, given after non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have failed, has been criticised. However, recent long-term studies highlight the complexities in evaluating whether to abandon pyramidal treatment in favour of early DMARDs. Although patients given early DMARD therapy show short-term benefits, longer-term results show no prolonged clinical advantages from early DMARDs. By 5 years patients receiving early DMARDs had similar disease activity and comparable health assessment questionnaire scores to patients who received DMARDs later in their disease course. X-ray progression was persistent and virtually identical in both groups. These negative findings do not invalidate the case for early DMARD therapy, as it is gives sustained reductions in disease activity in the early years of treatment without excessive risks from adverse effects. However, early DMARDs alone do not adequately control RA in the longer term. This may require starting with very aggressive therapy or treating patients more aggressively after early DMARD therapy has been initiated.     

Current and future management approaches for rheumatoid arthritis

With the introduction of new disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other therapeutic agents, the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has shifted toward earlier, more aggressive therapy. The ultimate goal is to prevent structural joint damage that leads to pain and functional disability. Early diagnosis of RA is therefore essential, and early DMARD treatment combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended. Combination DMARD regimens and new biologic agents (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] therapies [infliximab, etanercept] and the interleukin [IL]-1 antagonist [anakinra]) have emerged as viable options for early treatment of RA patients. These new biologic agents and future nonbiologic agents that target proteins in signaling cascades are likely to change the landscape of RA treatments.     

The supplementary therapeutic DMARD role of low-dose glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis

The management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is primarily based on the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), mainly comprising synthetic chemical compounds (that is, methotrexate or leflunomide) and biological agents (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or abatacept). On the other hand, glucocorticoids (GCs), used for decades in the treatment of RA, are effective in relieving signs and symptoms of the disease, but also interfere with radiographic progression, either as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs. GCs exert most of their biological effects through a genomic action, using the cytosolic GC receptor and then interacting with the target genes within target cells that can result in increased expression of regulatory - including anti-inflammatory - proteins (transactivation) or decreased production of proinflammatory proteins (transrepression). An inadequate secretion of GCs from the adrenal gland, in relation to stress and inflammation, seems to play an important role in the pathogenesis and disease progression of RA. At present there is clear evidence that GC therapy, especially long-term low-dose treatment, slows radiographic progression by at least 50% when given to patients with early RA, hence satisfying the conventional definition of a DMARD. In addition, long-term follow-up studies suggest that RA treatment strategies which include GC therapy may favorably alter the disease course even after their discontinuation. Finally, a low-dose, modified night-release formulation of prednisone, although administered in the evening (replacement therapy), has been developed to counteract the circadian (night) rise in proinflammatory cytokine levels that contributes to disease activity, and might represent the way to further optimize the DMARD activity exerted by GCs in RA.     

Early combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and tight disease control improve long-term radiologic outcome in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the 11-year results of the Finnish Rheumatoid Arthritis Combination Therapy trial

Introduction  

Early treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been shown to retard the development of joint damage for a period of up to 5 years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiologic progression beyond that time in patients with early RA initially treated with a combination of three disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or a single DMARD.     

Plasma Levels of IL-37 and Correlation with TNF-α, IL-17A,and Disease Activity during DMARD Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

The aim of this study was to assess the change of IL-37 concentrations in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients under Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, and to establish a correlation between Interleukin-37 and pro-inflammatory cytokines in plasma and disease activity. The plasma level of IL-37 was determined using ELISA in 50 newly diagnosed RA patients and 30 healthy controls (HC). Plasma levels of IL-17A, IL-6 and TNF-α were measured using flow a cytometric bead array assay. We found that the concentrations of IL-37, as well as IL-17A, IL-6 and TNF-α, were higher in plasma of RA patients compared to HCs. Compared to patients who did not respond to DMARD treatment, treatment of patients responsive to DMARDs resulted in down-regulation of IL-17A, IL-6 and TNF-α expression. The plasma level of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-37 was also decreased in drug responders after DMARD treatment. The plasma level of IL-37 in RA patients was positively correlated with pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-17A, TNF-α) and disease activity (CRP, DAS28) in RA patients. IL-37 expression in RA and during DMARD treatment appears to be controlled by the level of pro-inflammatory cytokines. This results in a strong correlation between plasma levels of IL-37 and disease activity in RA patients.     

Comparing Effects of Biologic Agents in Treating Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multiple Treatment Comparison Regression Analysis

Rheumatoid arthritis patients have been treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and the newer biologic drugs. We sought to compare and rank the biologics with respect to efficacy. We performed a literature search identifying 54 publications encompassing 9 biologics. We conducted a multiple treatment comparison regression analysis letting the number experiencing a 50% improvement on the ACR score be dependent upon dose level and disease duration for assessing the comparable relative effect between biologics and placebo or DMARD. The analysis embraced all treatment and comparator arms over all publications. Hence, all measured effects of any biologic agent contributed to the comparison of all biologic agents relative to each other either given alone or combined with DMARD. We found the drug effect to be dependent on dose level, but not on disease duration, and the impact of a high versus low dose level was the same for all drugs (higher doses indicated a higher frequency of ACR50 scores). The ranking of the drugs when given without DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), etanercept, tocilizumab/ abatacept and adalimumab. The ranking of the drugs when given with DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), tocilizumab, anakinra, rituximab, golimumab/ infliximab/ abatacept, adalimumab/ etanercept. Still, all drugs were effective. All biologic agents were effective compared to placebo, with certolizumab the most effective and adalimumab (without DMARD treatment) and adalimumab/ etanercept (combined with DMARD treatment) the least effective. The drugs were in general more effective, except for etanercept, when given together with DMARDs.     

Unmet needs in rheumatoid arthritis

Until the pathophysiology/etiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is better understood, treatment strategies must focus on disease management. Early diagnosis and treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are necessary to reduce early joint damage, functional loss, and mortality. Several clinical trials have now clearly shown that administering appropriate DMARDs early yields better therapeutic outcomes. However, RA is a heterogeneous disease in which responses to treatment vary considerably for any given patient. Thus, choosing which patients receive combination DMARDs, and which combinations, remains one of our major challenges in treating RA patients. In many well controlled clinical trials methotrexate and other DMARDs, including the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors, have shown considerable efficacy in controlling the inflammatory process, but many patients continue to have active disease. Optimizing clinical response requires the use of a full spectrum of clinical agents with different therapeutic targets. Newer therapies, such as rituximab, that specifically target B cells have emerged as viable treatment options for patients with RA.     

Effect of Combination Therapy on Joint Destruction in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Despite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods and Findings

The following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989–2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.42, −0.22); triple DMARD: −0.46 SMD (CI: −0.60, −0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: −0.30 SMD (CI: −0.36, −0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: −0.20 SMD (CI: −0.33, −0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: −0.34 SMD (CI: −0.48, −0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.40, −0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (−0.26 SMD (CI: −0.45, −0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (−0.16 SMD (CI: −0.31, −0.01)).

Conclusion

Combination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2–3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.     

A longitudinal study of rheumatoid arthritis in South Africans

Little is known about the functional outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Africans treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We describe our experience with 182 RA patients seen at a tertiary hospital in South Africa. During the median follow-up period of 3.3 years, the proportion of patients with severe functional disability (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] functional classes [FCs] 3 and 4) declined significantly from 48.9% at presentation to 30.8% at last visit (P =.0006). There was a significant fall in the median Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (46-28 mm/hour, P <.00001) and C-reactive protein (CRP) (19-15.5 mg/L, P =.006) over this period. Logistic regression analysis showed that the factors that negatively affected functional outcome at last visit were severe functional disability at presentation (odds ratio [OR] = 4.1, P =.0004), delay in referral for specialist care > 2 years (OR = 3.1, P =.02), and ESR at last visit > 28 mm/hour (OR = 3.2, P =.002). DMARDs and oral corticosteroids were prescribed in 93.1% of patients at presentation and 60.4% of patients at last visit. Life-table analysis showed that the survival time with methotrexate (MTX) use was significantly longer compared with the other DMARDs (P =.0002). A total of only 37 surgical procedures were performed on 21 patients. This retrospective study shows that despite the late presentation and severe disease, patients do improve on DMARD therapy in the medium term. The study highlights the need for prospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of DMARDs, particularly in early disease, in the developing countries where biologics are unlikely to be affordable in the foreseeable future.     

Understanding emerging treatment paradigms in rheumatoid arthritis

Treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) will continue to evolve as new drugs are developed, as new data become available, and as our potential to achieve greater and more consistent outcomes becomes more routine. Many patients will find both symptom relief and modest control of their disease with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), yet this course of therapy is clearly not effective in all patients. In fact, despite strong evidence that intensive treatment in the early stages of RA can slow or stop disease progression and may prevent disability, many patients continue to be managed in a stepwise manner and are treated with an ongoing monotherapy regimen with DMARDs. There is now a large body of evidence demonstrating the success of treating RA patients with anti-TNF therapy, usually in combination with methotrexate. As a result of the increased use of anti-TNF therapy, treatment paradigms have changed - and our practice is beginning to reflect this change. In the present review, we summarize the salient points of several recently proposed and emerging treatment paradigms with an emphasis on how these strategies may impact future practice.     

Comparative Effectiveness of Tocilizumab with either Methotrexate or Leflunomide in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

In agreement with EULAR recommendations, a DMARD in combination with a biotherapy is the reference treatment because of the superior long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. Methotrexate (MTX) is the cornerstone of combination therapy but is in some cases contra-indicated or poorly tolerated. This observational study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of TCZ in combination with either MTX or leflunomide (LEF) in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to one or more DMARDs and/or biological agents in a real-world setting.

Methods

We performed an ambispective review of 91 patients with active RA who were routinely treated with TCZ plus MTX or LEF. A comparative study between the two combinations of treatment was performed at 6 months of follow-up considering 3 outcomes: improvement of RA disease activity, evolution of functional disability, and tolerability and side effect profile.

Results

Of the 91 patients, 62 received TCZ with MTX and 29 received TCZ with LEF. Eighty-one patients were followed for 6 months, and the remaining 10 patients discontinued treatment due to serious adverse events. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the main clinical and laboratory data or in the number of previous DMARDs and biological agents used. At 6 months, there were no significant differences between the combinations in terms of disease activity and functional disability. Serious adverse events occurred in 11% and 10% of the patients treated in combination with MTX and LEF, respectively.

Conclusion

Our preliminary data support the argument that LEF is an effective and safe (equivalent) alternative to MTX for combination treatment with TCZ.     

A new paradigm of quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis: how our new therapeutics have changed the game

Demonstrating the effectiveness of expensive new rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapeutics is imperative to determine whether the quality of care has improved with the introduction of these agents. Our current RA quality measures are primarily process based, but they must become outcomes based to better demonstrate quality. New RA quality measures must be multidimensional, accounting for all of the important outcomes in RA: radiographic, functional status, and disease activity. To fully understand the potential benefits of new therapeutics in RA, outcome measures must be integrated with routine practice.New medications for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), combined with early, aggressive treatment strategies, have improved care. New biologic and small molecule therapies come with a hefty price tag, and demonstrating effectiveness is increasingly important: is the quality of care actually better for RA patients with newer therapies?To answer this question, we must first define quality. As described by the Institute of Medicine, quality of care is ''the degree to which healthcare services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge’ [1]. Quality of care can be evaluated using quality measures, which are tools that provide the ability to quantify an aspect of healthcare relative to an established criterion [2]. Other facets of quality include patient satisfaction and access to care. Quality of care in RA is currently largely based on the use of process-based quality measures. For example: the frequency of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) prescribing in RA; the use of disease activity and functional status measures in routine practice; and laboratory monitoring frequency according to established recommendations. These RA quality measures are primarily derived from the Arthritis Foundation Starter Set and the Physician Quality Reporting Database RA measure set, but the American College of Rheumatology is actively developing a new RA measure set [3]. Although the current RA quality measures provide a reasonable starting point, they do not fully capture the spectrum of care quality for patients with RA in the United States.Measures of quality of care are evolving to include concepts such as clinical outcomes. Some even argue that our primary goal should be to provide value: the health outcomes achieved per dollar spent [4]. This newer model incorporates the total cost of providing care to patients for a specific condition over a defined time period, relative to the health outcome achieved. For example, in RA the total cost of care would include nonbiologic and biologic DMARDs, office visits, physical therapy and inpatient hospitalizations. But the real question is how to best define outcomes in a chronic, complex condition such as RA? Outcomes can be multidimensional, accounting for all facets of care for a RA patient: radiographic progression, improvement in functional status score, or a decrease in disease activity score. Radiographic progression is often discussed as an important outcome in randomized controlled trials of RA therapeutics, but it is not a routine part of clinical practice. Measurement of functional status using a standardized, validated instrument is an important patient-reported outcome, capturing key information about how RA impacts activities of daily living. Patient-reported outcomes are not used regularly in many busy, office practices despite the correlation with disease outcomes and mortality [5,6].While professional groups such as the American College of Rheumatology have made recommendations on the measurement of disease activity through the use of tools such as the Disease Activity Score-28, the Clinical Disease Activity Index, or the Routine Assessment of Patient Disease Activity 3, documenting sustained low disease activity or remission requires multiple measurements [7]. Encouraging rheumatologists to treat to target and moving patients from high disease activity to remission is just one dimension of RA outcomes. Each potential clinical outcome has strengths and limitations and probably cannot serve as a standalone measure, but taken together they provide a more nuanced portrait of RA quality of care.Moving from thinking about quality measures as process based to outcomes based is a significant challenge. To achieve good outcomes in RA using the new therapeutics in RA, one needs to consider the timing of therapy, the duration of treatment, and the co-existence of other medical conditions. Some patients may delay initiation of DMARD therapy due to fear of toxicity or lack of understanding of the risk/benefit profile; other patients may not be fully adherent to the treatment plan due to financial issues, socioeconomic factors or language barriers; and still others may not have access to rheumatology care until after they have sustained radiographic or functional damage from their RA. Since quality is often measured at the level of the rheumatologist, how do we risk adjust for these complex patient-related factors when evaluating outcomes in RA? Some rheumatologists see tertiary-care referral patients with longer disease duration, more treatment failures, and multiple co-morbidities. Developing appropriate case-mix adjustment tools to allow for meaningful comparison across providers is a huge task. We have learned that even for a simple quality measure such as whether RA patients receive a DMARD, this case-mix adjustment matters. When evaluating the quality measure on receipt of DMARDs for patients with RA, case-mix adjustment identified age, race and socioeconomic status as negative predictors of DMARD receipt [8].Even though the road will be tough, we must determine how to best measure outcomes in RA to assess quality of care. The expenditures associated with biologic treatments raise important questions for how to demonstrate the effectiveness of medications for RA. However, there are emerging data on RA patients remaining in remission with fewer doses or even cessation of biologic drugs, raising the possibility that we can improve value for patients by simultaneously achieving good health outcomes and decreasing the overall cost of care [9]. An important first step to showing that new therapeutics are translating into better quality of care is incorporating the use of quantitative measurement of disease activity and functional status into routine clinical practice. By regularly measuring possible RA outcome measures, such as disease activity and functional status, we can identify patients who are achieving poor outcomes and create strategies to re-design care delivery for those patients. For example, the use of intensive nurse outreach between regularly scheduled rheumatologist visits to document medication adherence, side effects and education may improve outcomes faster and facilitate treating to target. Developing clinical risk-adjustment tools for RA can help offset differences in patient case mix among rheumatologists.However, measuring outcomes presents major challenges for the healthcare system in general. Collecting structured data to allow quality assessment is not routine in many practices and would place new burdens on the already stressed healthcare system, adding costs and frustration. Furthermore, accurately assessing quality of care requires adjusting for case-mix severity. This is especially true if outcomes become the focus of quality assessment. Collecting the dataset required for case-mix adjustment further taxes the healthcare provider. In addition, there are unanswered questions that remain: what is the current natural history of RA if diagnosed early and treated aggressively with combination nonbiologic and biologic DMARDs? To fully achieve the potential benefits of new therapeutics in RA, we first need RA quality measures that incorporate outcomes and these need to be easily integrated into typical practice.     

Effective use of TNF antagonists

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists are biologic response modifiers that have significantly improved functional outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA is a progressive disease in which structural joint damage can continue to develop even in the face of symptomatic relief. Before the introduction of biologic agents, the management of RA involved the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) early in the course of disease. This focus on early treatment, combined with the availability of the anti-TNF agents, has contributed to a shift in treatment paradigms favoring the early and timely use of DMARDs with biologic therapies. Improvement in symptom control does not always equate to a reduction in disease progression or disability. With the emergence of structure-related outcome measures as the primary means for assessing the effectiveness of antirheumatic agents, the regular use of X-rays is recommended for the continued monitoring and evaluation of patients. In addition to the control of symptoms and improvement in physical function, a reduction in erosions and joint-space narrowing should be considered among the goals of therapy, leading to a better quality of life. Adherence to therapy is an important element in optimizing outcomes. Durability of therapy with anti-TNF agents as reported from clinical trials can also be achieved in the clinical setting. Concomitant methotrexate therapy might be important in maintaining TNF antagonist therapy in the long term. Overall, the TNF antagonists have led to improvements in clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with RA, especially those who have failed to show a complete response to methotrexate.     

Methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis is frequently effective, even if re-employed after a previous failure

Effectiveness of therapy with individual disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is limited, and the number of available DMARDs is finite. Therefore, at some stage during the lengthy course of RA, institution of traditional DMARDs that have previously been applied may have to be reconsidered. In the present study we investigated the effectiveness of re-employed methotrexate in patients with a history of previous methotrexate failure (original course). A total of 1,490 RA patients (80% female, 59% rheumatoid factor positive) were followed from their first presentation, yielding a total of 6,470 patient-years of observation. We identified patients in whom methotrexate was re-employed after at least one intermittent course of a different DMARD. We compared reasons for discontinuation, improvement in acute phase reactants, and cumulative retention rates of methotrexate therapy between the original course of methotrexate and its re-employment. Similar analyses were peformed for other DMARDs. Methotrexate was re-employed in 86 patients. Compared with the original courses, re-employment was associated with a reduced risk for treatment termination because of ineffectiveness (P = 0.02, by McNemar test), especially if the maximum methotrexate dose of the original course had been low (<12.5 mg/week; P = 0.02, by logistic regression). In a Cox regression model, re-employed MTX was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of treatment termination compared with the original course of methotrexate, adjusting for dose and year of employment (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.97; P = 0.04). These findings were not recapitulated in analyses of re-employment of other DMARDs. Re-employment of MTX despite prior inefficacy, but not re-employment of other DMARDs, is an effective therapeutic option, especially in those patients in whom the methotrexate dose of the original course was low.     

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a case control study

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by inflammation and an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study investigates possible associations between CVD and the use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA. Using a case control design, 613 RA patients (5,649 patient-years) were studied, 72 with CVD and 541 without CVD. Data on RA, CVD and drug treatment were evaluated from time of RA diagnosis up to the first cardiovascular event or the end of the follow-up period. The dataset was categorized according to DMARD use: sulfasalazine (SSZ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or methotrexate (MTX). Odds ratios (ORs) for CVD, corrected for age, gender, smoking and RA duration, were calculated per DMARD group. Patients who never used SSZ, HCQ or MTX were used as a reference group. MTX treatment was associated with a significant CVD risk reduction, with ORs (95% CI): 'MTX only', 0.16 (0.04 to 0.66); 'MTX and SSZ ever', 0.20 (0.08 to 0.51); and 'MTX, SSZ and HCQ ever', 0.20 (0.08 to 0.54). The risk reductions remained significant after additional correction for the presence of rheumatoid factor and erosions. After correction for hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia, 'MTX or SSZ ever' and 'MTX, SSZ and HCQ ever' showed significant CVD risk reduction. Rheumatoid factor positivity and erosions both increased CVD risk, with ORs of 2.04 (1.02 to 4.07) and 2.36 (0.92 to 6.08), respectively. MTX and, to a lesser extent, SSZ were associated with significantly lower CVD risk compared to RA patients who never used SSZ, HCQ or MTX. We hypothesize that DMARD use, in particular MTX use, results in powerful suppression of inflammation, thereby reducing the development of atherosclerosis and subsequently clinically overt CVD.     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey

Introduction

Numerous studies across different health systems have documented that many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not receive disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Relatively little is known about correlates of DMARD use and whether there are socioeconomic and demographic disparities. We examined DMARD use during 2001 to 2006 in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS), a longitudinal US survey of randomly selected Medicare beneficiaries.

Methods

Participants in MCBS with RA were included in the analyses, and DMARD use was based on an in-home assessment of all medications. Variables included as potential correlates of DMARD use in weighted regression models included race/ethnicity, insurance, income, education, rheumatology visit, region, age, gender, comorbidity index, and calendar year.

Results

The cohort consisted of 509 MCBS participants with a diagnosis code for RA. Their median age was 70 years, 72% were female, and 24% saw a rheumatologist. Rates of DMARD use ranged from 37% among those <75 years of age to 25% of those age 75 to 84 and 4% of those age 85 and older. The multivariable adjusted predictors of DMARD use include: visit with a rheumatologist in the prior year (odds ratio, OR, 7.74, 95% CI, 5.37, 11.1) and older patient age (compared with <75 years, ages 75 to 84, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37, 0.92, and 85 and over, OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02, 0.31). In those without a rheumatology visit, lower income and older age were associated with a significantly reduced probability of DMARD use; no association of DMARD use with income or age was observed for subjects seen by rheumatologists. Race and ethnicity were not significantly associated with receipt of DMARDs.

Conclusions

Among individuals not seeing rheumatologists, lower income and older age were associated with a reduced probability of DMARD use.     

Matrix to predict rapid radiographic progression of early rheumatoid arthritis patients from the community treated with methotrexate or leflunomide: results from the ESPOIR cohort

Introduction

Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients may show rapid radiographic progression (RRP) despite rapid initiation of synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The present study aimed to develop a matrix to predict risk of RRP despite early DMARD initiation in real life settings.

Methods

The ESPOIR cohort included 813 patients from the community with early arthritis for < 6 months; 370 patients had early RA and had received methotrexate or leflunomide during the first year of follow-up. RRP was defined as an increase in the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score (vSHS) ≥ 5 points at 1 year. Determinants of RRP were examined first by bivariate analysis, then multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis. A visual matrix model was then developed to predict RRP in terms of patient baseline characteristics.

Results

We analyzed data for 370 patients. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was 5.4 ± 1.2, 18.1% of patients had typical RA erosion on radiographs and 86.4% satisfied the 2010 criteria of the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism. During the first year, mean change in vSHS was 1.6 ± 5.5, and 41 patients (11.1%) showed RRP. A multivariate logistic regression model enabled the development of a matrix predicting RRP in terms of baseline swollen joint count, C-reactive protein level, anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies status, and erosions seen on radiography for patients with early RA who received DMARDs.

Conclusions

The ESPOIR matrix may be a useful clinical practice tool to identify patients with early RA at high risk of RRP despite early DMARD initiation.     

Clinical and functional remission: even though biologics are superior to conventional DMARDs overall success rates remain low--results from RABBIT, the German biologics register

We investigated the frequency of remission according to the disease activity score (DAS28) definition, modified American Rheumatology Association (ARA) criteria, and the frequency of an achievement of a functional status above defined thresholds ('functional remission', 'physical independence') in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with either biologics or conventional DMARDs. We used the data of a prospective cohort study, the German biologics register RABBIT (German acronym for Rheumatoid Arthritis--Observation of Biologic Therapy) to investigate the outcomes in RA patients with two or more DMARD failures who received new treatment with biologics (BIOL; n = 818) or a conventional DMARD (n = 265). Logistic regression analysis was applied to adjust for differences in baseline risks. Taking risk indicators such as previous DMARD failures or baseline clinical status into account, we found that biologics doubled the chance of remission compared to conventional DMARD therapies (DAS28 remission, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.95 (95% confidenece interval (CI) 1.2-3.2)); ARA remission, OR 2.05 (95% CI 1.2-3.5)). High remission rates (DAS28 remission, 30.6%; ARA remission, 16.9%) were observed in BIOL patients with a moderate disease activity (DAS28, 3.2 to 5.1) at the start of treatment. These rates decreased to 8.5% in patients with DAS28 > 6. Sustained remission at 6 and 12 months was achieved in <10% of the patients. Severely disabled patients (< or = 50% of full function) receiving biologic therapies were significantly more likely to achieve a status indicating physical independence (> or = 67% of full function) than controls (OR 3.88 (95% CI 1.7-8.8)). 'Functional remission' (> or = 83% of full function) was more often achieved in BIOL than in controls (OR 2.18 (95% CI 1.04-4.6)). In conclusion, our study shows that biologics increase the chance to achieve clinical remission and a status of functional remission or at least physical independence. However, temporary or even sustained remission remain ambitious aims, which are achieved in a minority of patients only.