Dataset Information

Effectiveness of four dynamic treatment strategies in patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: To determine the most effective treatment strategy among anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)-negative patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.In the BeSt study, 184 ACPA-negative patients were randomised to: (1) sequential monotherapy, (2) step-up therapy, (3) initial combination including prednisone, (4) initial combination including infliximab. Treatment was targeted at the disease activity score (DAS) ≤2.4. Early response and 10-year outcomes were compared between the four strategy-arms in ACPA-negative patients.ACPA-negative patients achieved more short-term functional improvement from initial combination therapy than when on monotherapy (at month 3, mean Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) 0.71 vs 0.98, p=0.006; at month 6, 0.59 vs 0.87, p=0.004). Functional ability over time was comparable between the strategy-arms (p=0.551) with a mean HAQ of 0.6 at year 10 (p=0.580 for comparison across the strategy-arms). 10-year radiographic progression was negligible (median 0.5) and comparable between the 4 strategy-arms (p=0.082). At year 10, remission was achieved by 11/40 (28%), 9/45 (20%), 17/56 (30%) and 17/43 patients (40%) in strategy-arms 1-4, respectively (p=0.434). Over time, similar remission percentages were achieved in all strategy-arms (p=0.815). 18%, 16%, 20% and 21% in strategy-arms 1 to 4 (p=0.742) were in drug-free remission at year 10, with a median duration of 60 months across the arms.Initial combination therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine and prednisone, or methotrexate and infliximab, is the most effective treatment strategy for ACPA-negative patients, resulting in earlier functional improvement than when on initial methotrexate monotherapy. After 10 years of targeted treatment, in all strategy-arms favourable clinical outcomes were achieved and radiographic progression was limited.NTR262, NTR265.

SUBMITTER: Akdemir G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4823586 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArthritis (or compression) gloves are widely prescribed to people with rheumatoid arthritis and other forms of hand arthritis. They are prescribed for daytime wear to reduce hand pain and improve hand function, and/or night-time wear to reduce pain, improve sleep and reduce morning stiffness. However, evidence for their effectiveness is limited. The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthritis gloves compared to placebo gloves on hand pain, stiffness and function in people with rheumatoid arthritis and persistent hand pain.MethodsA parallel randomised controlled trial, in adults (≥ 18 years) with rheumatoid or undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis at 16 National Health Service sites in the UK. Patients with persistent hand pain affecting function and/or sleep were eligible. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by recent change (or not) in medication, using permuted blocks of random sizes. Three-quarter-finger length arthritis gloves (Isotoner®: applying 23-32 mmHg pressure) (intervention) were compared to loose-fitting placebo gloves (Jobskin® classic: providing no/minimal pressure) (control). Both gloves (considered to have similar thermal qualities) were provided by occupational therapists. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded; clinicians were not. The primary outcome was dominant hand pain on activity (0-10) at 12 weeks, analysed using linear regression and intention to treat principles.ResultsTwo hundred six participants were randomly assigned (103 per arm) and 163 (84 intervention: 79 control) completed 12-week follow-up. Hand pain improved by 1.0 (intervention) and 1.2 (control), an adjusted mean difference of 0.10 (95% CI: - 0.47 to 0.67; p = 0.72). Adverse events were reported by 51% of intervention and 36% of control group participants; with 6 and 7% respectively, discontinuing glove wear. Provision of arthritis gloves cost £129, with no additional benefit.ConclusionThe trial provides evidence of no clinically important effect of arthritis gloves on any of the trial outcomes (hand pain, function and stiffness) and arthritis gloves are not cost-effective. The clinical and cost-effectiveness results support ceasing provision of arthritis gloves in routine clinical practice.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN25892131 ; Registered 05/09/2016: retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundDifferential diagnosis among psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (Abneg RA) can be challenging particularly in the clinical setting of peripheral phenotype and autoantibodies seronegativity. The aim of the study was to identify synovial tissue (ST) biomarkers differentially expressed in PsA and Abneg RA and test their predictive value of therapeutic response.MethodsThirty-four PsA patients [12 DMARD naive and 22 non-responder to methotrexate (MTX-IR)] with peripheral joint involvement and 55 Abneg RA (27 DMARD naive and 28 MTX-IR) underwent US-guided ST biopsy and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CD68+, CD3+, CD20+, CD21+, CD117+, and CD138+ cells. After study entry, each DMARD-naive patient started MTX therapy and was followed in an outpatient setting for at least 6 months to define the achievement of Minimal Disease Activity (PsA) and DAS remission (Abneg RA) status respectively. Each IR-MTX patient was treated according to EULAR recommendations.ResultsAt study entry, IHC analysis revealed that PsA patients had comparable levels of lining and sublining CD68+ and sublining CD21+, CD20+, and CD3+ cells than Abneg RA, despite the therapeutic regimen. Moreover, regardless of the therapeutic scheme, PsA patients showed higher IHC score of CD117+ cells (p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0005 for naive and MTX-IR patients respectively) compared to Abneg RA patients. Conversely, Abneg RA patients showed higher IHC score of CD138+ cells, irrespective to the therapeutic scheme (p = 0.04 and p = 0.002 for naive and MTX-IR patients respectively). Analyzing the response rate to the therapeutic scheme, naive PsA patients reaching MDA status at 6 months follow-up, showed, at the study entry, lower IHC score of CD3+ cells compared to PsA patients not reaching this outcome (p = 0.02); conversely, naive Abneg RA patients reaching DAS remission status at 6 months follow-up, showed, at the study entry, lower IHC score of sublining CD68+ cells compared to Abneg RA patients not reaching this outcome (p < 0.001).ConclusionsCD117+ and CD138+ cells are differentially distributed among PsA and Abneg RA. Histological analysis of ST may help to solve the clinical overlap between the two diseases and provides prognostic data about the therapy success.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Because of its association with joint destruction, anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered to be more severe than ACPA-negative RA. Clinically relevant joint destruction is now infrequent thanks to adequate disease suppression. According to patients, important outcomes are pain, fatigue, and independence. We evaluated whether ACPA-positive RA patients diagnosed during or after 2000 have more severe self-reported limitations and impairments, including restrictions at work, than ACPA-negative RA patients. METHODS:A total of 492 ACPA-positive and 450 ACPA-negative RA patients who fulfilled the 2010 criteria and were included in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort during or after 2000 were compared for self-reported pain, fatigue, disease activity, general well-being (measured by numerical rating scales), physical function (measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire), and work restrictions, including absenteeism at baseline and during the 4-year followup. Linear mixed models were used. RESULTS:At disease presentation, ACPA-negative patients had more severe pain, fatigue, self-reported disease activity scores, and functional disability (P < 0.05), although absolute differences were small. During followup, ACPA-negative patients remained somewhat more fatigued (P = 0.002), whereas other patient-reported impairments and limitations were similar. Thirty-eight percent of ACPA-negative and 48% of ACPA-positive patients reported absenteeism (P = 0.30), with median 4 days missed in both groups in the last 3 months. Also, restrictions at work among employed patients and restrictions with household work were not statistically different at baseline and during followup. CONCLUSION:In current rheumatology practice, ACPA-positive RA is not more severe than ACPA-negative RA in terms of patients' relevant outcomes, including physical functioning and restrictions at work. This implies that efforts to further improve the disease course should be proportional to both disease subsets.

Project description:Objective To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy.Design Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial.Setting Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015.Participants 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded.Interventions 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years.Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set.Results 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval -7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events.Conclusions The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of four dynamic treatment strategies in patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets