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.     

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.     

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.     

Strategies toward rheumatoid arthritis therapy; the old and the new

Currently, medications used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are glucocorticoids (GCs) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), predominantly used for controlling the pain and inflammation, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), administered as first-line medication for newly diagnosed RA cases, and biological therapies, used to target and inhibit specific molecules of the immune and inflammatory responses. NSAIDs and other GCs are effective in alleviating the pain, inflammation, and stiffness due to RA. DMARDs that are used for RA therapy are hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and sulfasalazine. The biological therapies, on the contrary, are chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab, inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) like etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab, a recombinant inhibitor of interleukin-1 (IL-1), anakinra, and costimulation blocker, abatacept. Moreover, newly under evaluation biological therapies include new TNF-α inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, anti-interleukin-6-receptor monoclonal antibodies (mABs), and antibodies against vital molecules involved in the survival and development of functional B cells. The new strategies to treat RA has improved the course of the disease and most of the patients are successful in remission of the clinical manifestations if the diagnosis of the disease occur early. The probability of remission increase if the diagnosis happens rapidly and treat-to-target approach are implemented. In this review article, we have attempted to go through the treatment strategies for RA therapy both the routine ones and those which have been developed over the past few years and currently under investigation.     

Liposomal encapsulation of glucocorticoids alters their mode of action in the treatment of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are widely used to treat acute relapses of multiple sclerosis (MS). In this study, we demonstrate that liposomal encapsulation augments the therapeutic potency of GCs as they ameliorate experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) to the same extent as free GC, but at strongly reduced dosage and application frequency. Importantly, this is accompanied by an altered mode of action. Unlike free GCs, which mainly target T lymphocytes during EAE therapy, liposomal GCs only marginally affect T cell apoptosis and function. In contrast, liposomal GCs efficiently repress proinflammatory macrophage functions and upregulate anti-inflammatory genes associated with the alternatively activated M2 phenotype. The GC receptor (GR) per se is indispensable for the therapeutic efficacy of liposomal GC. In contrast to free GCs, however, the individual deletion of the GR either in T cells or myeloid cells has little effect on the efficacy of liposomal GCs in the treatment of EAE. Only the combined deletion of the GR in both cellular compartments markedly compromises the therapeutic effect of liposomal GCs on disease progression. In conclusion, encapsulation of GC does not only enhance their efficacy in the treatment of EAE but also alters their target cell specificity and their mode of action compared with free GCs.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Spontaneous serial fractures of metatarsal bones in female patient with rheumatoid arthritis on long-term steroid therapy

Low-dose oral steroid therapies are very effective in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), reducing disease activity in acute crisis either while waiting for disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to take effect or if it was slow in response to DMARDs. However, long-term steroid therapies are associated with serious side effects, such as osteoporotic reduction of bone mass and frequent fractures. This paper reports a female patient who has suffered RA treated with low-dose oral steroid therapy in a long-term period. Suddenly, she developed severe pain and oedema of forefeet during home distance level walking, with no history of trauma. The diagnosis of spontaneous serial fractures of the 2nd to 4th metatarsal (MT) bone bilaterally was performed by feet radiography. Furthermore, in widening the diagnostic approaches the authors had performed diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound to exclude metatarsophalangeal joint effusion and exacerbation of RA. They also made a static analysis of feet on the electronic baropodometer system in order to register biomechanical changes in bipedal standing. One year after, the same diagnostic procedures were done, on which occasion the healing of fractures were verified, with better results in biomechanical static analysis of the feet but without complete regression of static disbalance. This could lead to further disturbances during level walking and daily activities. This paper reports a unique case of the RA patient on long-term low-dose steroid therapy with previously unreported sites of spontaneous metatarsal fractures of feet which causes further static disbalance; consequently the patient might experience problems in every-day life activities.     

Bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis can be repaired through reduction in disease activity with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

We conducted the present study to determine whether repair of erosions occurs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and to compare clinical characteristics between patients exhibiting and not exhibiting erosion repair. We included in the study a total of 122 RA patients who fulfilled the 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA; all patients had paired sequential radiographs of both hands and wrists showing erosive changes at baseline. Patients were classified into two groups according to the presence of repair of erosions at follow up, namely the 'repair observed' and 'repair not observed' groups. Clinical characteristics, disease activity, radiographic scores and treatment in the two groups were compared. Forty-four repairs were observed in 13 patients (10.7%). Compared with the repair not observed group, the functional class of the patients in the repair observed group was lower at baseline (P < 0.01) and the mean disease activity was lower at follow up (P < 0.005). The changes in radiographic scores per year (total radiographic score and erosion score) were lower (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively) in the repair observed group. No difference in treatment was observed. Repair of erosions was detected in 10.7% of RA patients treated with conventional DMARDs. Repairs were associated with low functional class at baseline and low disease activity at follow up. These observations support the importance of reduction in disease activity in RA patients. Because repair of erosions was detected in a substantial number of patients, assessment of erosion repair should be incorporated into the radiographic evaluation and scoring of RA.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 (≤50% of full function) receiving biologic therapies were significantly more likely to achieve a status indicating physical independence (≥67% of full function) than controls (OR 3.88 (95% CI 1.7–8.8)). 'Functional remission' (≥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.