Combination Of Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Research Articles

To what extent is NICE guidance on the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults being implemented in clinical practice? A regional survey

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease associated with significant morbidity. The 2009 NICE guidance advises on the management of patients with RA. In this study, we undertook a survey to assess the implementation of the guidance into practice across the Midlands. In total, 19 rheumatology units participated, of which nine have designated early inflammatory arthritis clinics (EIAC). Data for 311 patients with RA attending clinics were collected during a two week period. The median time from symptom onset to first visit was four months. Of the patients, 95.6% were seen within 12 weeks of referral. Of those seen in EIAC, 75.9% had erosions documented on X-rays versus 49.4% of non-EIAC patients. In addition, 57.9% of patients were offered combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy in EIAC, versus 30.4% in non-EIAC units. Monthly disease-activity scores were calculated more in patients attending EIAC than non-EIAC units (51.1% versus 25.4%). Based on our results, there is significant regional variation in implementation of the NICE guidance. In addition, patients with RA attending EIACs are more likely to receive a treat-to-target approach.

Non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improve pain in inflammatory arthritis (IA): a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials

Evidence supports early use of non-biologic DMARDs to prevent irreversible damage in inflammatory arthritides, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and possibly ankylosing spondylitis (AS). However, there is a paucity of data exploring their effects on pain as a primary outcome in these conditions. This systematic literature review investigated the effect of non-biologic DMARDs on pain levels in IA and examined whether disease duration impacted efficacy. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, abstracts from the 2008 to 2010 American College of Rheumatology annual congresses, and citation lists of retrieved publications. Only randomized, double-blind controlled trials were analyzed. Quality was assessed with the Risk of Bias tool. Descriptive statistics were used in meta-analysis. 9,860 articles were identified, with 33 eligible for inclusion: 8 in AS, 6 in PsA, 9 in early RA (ERA), and 10 in established RA. In ERA and established RA, all studies of DMARDs (monotherapy and combination therapies) consistently revealed statistically significant reductions in pain except three oral gold studies. In AS, sulfasalazine studies showed significant pain reduction, whereas use of other DMARDs did not. In PsA, 5 of 6 studies reported VAS-pain improvement. From the studies included, we were unable to assess the influence of disease duration on pain outcomes in these rheumatic conditions. DMARDs improve pain in early and established RA. Sulfasalazine may improve pain in AS and PsA. Further study is needed to assess the relationship between disease duration and DMARD efficacy in reducing pain in these conditions.

Recent trends in use of nonbiologic DMARDs and evaluation of their continuation rates in single and dual combination therapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Japan

Objective We aim to examine changes in usage of nonbiologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and evaluate their continuation rates in Japan.Methods We analyzed DMARD treatment data for 3,734 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from 1998 to 2009 at Juntendo Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. The DMARD usage rate per month was determined to evaluate RA treatment history in the last decade. We also evaluated continuation rates of nonbiologic DMARDs in single and combination therapies and number of nonbiologic DMARD combination therapies used in each patient.Results We found that nonbiologic DMARD usage has dramatically changed in the last decade, with the most commonly used DMARD shifting from bucillamine to methotrexate (MTX). MTX showed the highest continuation rate; however, much lower continuation rate was observed when used alone rather than in combination treatments. Further, MTX was also used in the highest number of different combination therapies for a particular patient.Conclusions These findings indicate that single MTX treatment may be unable to keep patients in clinical remission or lower disease activity compared with several combination therapies. Recent change in permitted maximum dosage of MTX from 8 to 16 mg/week may improve its efficacy and continuation rate in treating Japanese RA patients.

Patients’ views about treatment with combination therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: a comparative qualitative study

BackgroundCombinations of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are increasingly used to control active rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however there is little information about patients’ perspectives, their expectations, concerns and experiences of this intensive treatment.MethodWe interviewed a quota sample of 18 patients from a single tertiary outpatient clinic, stratified by gender, ethnicity and age, based on the outpatient clinic population. Patients with early RA (<2 years) received combined conventional DMARDs; patients with established RA (>2 years) received combined conventional DMARDs or DMARDs with biologics.ResultsFour main themes emerged from the analytical framework: (i) patients’ expectations about the combined treatment focuses mainly on physical symptoms; (ii) the impact of the treatment on quality of life varied with the new medication in both groups (iii) concerns about new interventions concentrated mainly on potential side effects; and (iv) combination therapy can be self-managed in close collaboration with clinic staff, but this requires individualised management approaches. These themes resonate with von Korff’s collaborative management of chronic illness model.ConclusionTo our knowledge this is the first qualitative study that examined systematically in patients with early and established RA their expectations, impact on quality of life, concerns about side effects and the management of the treatment when taking combined medication with DMARDs or DMARDs and biologics. Patients have generally positive views of combination DMARDs. Within routine practice settings, achieving medication concordance with complex combined DMARD regimens is challenging, and the concerns vary between patients; careful individual assessments are essential to successfully deliver such intensive treatment.

Therapierefraktäre Polyarthritis und Fieber

Primary manifestation of an autoinflammatory systemic disease was found in a 15-year-old patient, which initially ran a fulminant course. The course was first controlled by therapy with steroids and cyclosporin A. In the course of the disease, the patient developed a therapy refractory polyarthritis, which failed to respond to a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. A good disease control could only be achieved with an interleukin 6 (IL-6) blockade and DMARDs.

Induction therapy with a combination of DMARDs is better than methotrexate monotherapy: first results of the tREACH trial

ObjectiveTo determine the most effective induction disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) strategy in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), second to compare one single dose of intramuscular glucocorticoids (GCs) with daily oral GCs...

Decline in work disability caused by early rheumatoid arthritis: results from a nationwide Finnish register, 2000–8

ObjectivesTo study whether the work disability (WD) rates in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have changed in Finland, where the treatment of RA has long been active but has intensified further...

Summary of AHRQ's comparative effectiveness review of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults--an update.

In 2011, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) published a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) used to treat adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The publication was an update to a 2007 report. A total of 258 published articles were used in the AHRQ review to compare the effectiveness of corticosteroids, and oral and biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA. Head-to-head studies and prospective cohort trials were used to compare one drug to another in determining efficacy and effectiveness. AHRQ compiled this report in an attempt to summarize and integrate the available data for clinicians to make evidence based practice decisions for their patients since there is limited consensus among the medical community regarding the comparative effectiveness of drugs used to treat RA. The report reveals there is still much research to be done concerning the side effects of these agents and their influence in different patient subgroups. To: (a) utilize review findings to make diagnostic and treatment management decisions in clinical practice, (b) inform clinicians on the findings from the updated AHRQ's 2011 comparative effectiveness review on drug therapy for RA in adults, and (c) identify shortcomings in the current research and future directions revealed by the report. Rheumatoid arthritis is a major public health burden. The 2011 updated AHRQ report includes several new medications approved by the FDA since 2007. The review includes 31 head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 1 head-to-head nonrandomized controlled trial, 44 placebo controlled trials, 28 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, and 107 observational studies. Most of the studies used for the comparative analysis are of fair quality with an insufficient to moderate strength of evidence assigned to the findings (Table 1). A mixed treatment comparisons (MTC)meta-analysis from the AHRQ report found that the biologic etanercept has a higher probability of improvement in disease activity compared with other biologic DMARDs, but the MTC findings have a low strength of evidence and caution is recommended in the interpretation of this weak evidence. For patients with early RA, limited evidence precludes conclusions about the superiority of one combination therapy versus another. The data are also inconclusive for comparisons of therapeutic similarity among oral DMARDs including the limitation created by differences inmethotrexate (MTX) dosing across trials. Extensive clinical experience over the years support the preferred use of MTX in most patients versus other oral DMARDs as well as its use in multidrug regimens, whereas there is little data on the use of oral DMARDs in combination with biologic agents. The review does not support a specific biologic DMARD over another due to the lack of head-to-head trials comparing these agents using validated RA outcome measures. The data show that the majority of biologics have approximately the same efficacy except for anakinra, which was found to be less effective. The biologic and oral DMARDs are similar in overall tolerability, but several studies suggest that adverse events are more common with biologic DMARDs versus oral DMARDs. Based on limited evidence, the oral DMARDs do not appear to have an increased risk of severe adverse events including cardiovascular events and cancer. Although most studies also found no increased risk of cardiovascular events or cancer with the biologic DMARDs, cohort studies show an increased risk of heart failure with adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with oral DMARDs. The updated AHRQ review synthesizes the current literature on therapies used for the treatment of RA in adults. The investigators are also able to identify pertinent research gaps in the literature that can be addressed with future research.

Active foot synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Applying clinical criteria for disease activity and remission may result in underestimation of foot joint involvement

To determine whether application of criteria for remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may result in underestimation of foot joint involvement among patients in a clinic setting. RA patients (n = 123) were assessed at baseline and 6 months after commencement of a response-driven combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) protocol. Remission was assessed using disease activity measures (the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR], Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI], and Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) as well as Boolean-based criteria for remission (the 1981 American College of Rheumatology [ACR] preliminary criteria and the 2011 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism [EULAR] provisional criteria). The prevalence of foot synovitis and the mean swollen/tender foot joint count in RA patients meeting any of these remission criteria were estimated by hurdle (mixed distribution) regression. In patients who received 6 months of combination DMARD treatment, application of the 1981 ACR criteria and the newly proposed 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria, each utilizing full joint counts (which includes assessment of the feet), classified the least number of patients as being in remission (8-10%), and evidence of foot synovitis was minimal among these patients. In contrast, ongoing foot synovitis was present in a substantial proportion of patients (>20%) meeting the 28-joint count criteria for remission, including the DAS28-ESR, SDAI, CDAI, and 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria (clinical practice setting or clinical trials). Furthermore, applying the 2011 ACR/EULAR composite remission criterion of a SDAI score ≤3.3 to define remission did not adequately capture the resolution of foot synovitis (i.e., residual foot involvement was still detected in a substantial proportion of patients classified as being in remission by this definition). Although the DAS28-ESR, CDAI, and SDAI have been validated for assessment of remission in RA, this study shows that the performance of these 3 disease activity measures, which do not provide a direct assessment of the foot, in detecting foot synovitis is poor, in contrast to that of the 1981 ACR and 2011 ACR/EULAR remission criteria utilizing full joint counts. Thus, patients may be at risk of ongoing damage if treatment decisions are made solely on the basis of criteria that omit foot joint assessment.

Biologic Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects an estimated 1.3 million Americans and is a complex inflammatory disease associated with synovitis and joint destruction. The development of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that target specific mediators of inflammation has led to several highly successful therapies for the treatment of RA. The imperfect efficacy of biologic DMARDs has resulted in the absence of clear guidelines on how biologic DMARDs should be used in the clinic to optimize treatment of RA patients. This makes it imperative that better data be available to physicians and RA patients about the comparative effectiveness of different biologic DMARDs. Prior to 2008, there were no randomized trials comparing biologic DMARDs for the treatment of RA. Since then, there have been published studies that directly compared biologic DMARDs for the treatment of RA, and several studies that estimated the relative efficacy of different biologic DMARDs by comparing published results of studies that included treatment of RA patients with biologic DMARDs who had previously experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists. There are two recent studies that directly compared biologic DMARDs with optimal combinations of oral DMARDs and these are important because there are significant differences in costs and side effects between oral and biologic DMARDs. Among the studies that directly compared biologic DMARDs, it has been reported that RA patients who fail a TNF antagonist have a higher response rate (based on disease activity score [DAS28] measurements) to treatment with rituximab as compared with another TNF antagonist. In addition, in the ATTEST trial, the investigators found that, for RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, treatment with abatacept versus infliximab resulted in response rates that were roughly equal. There are also several head-to-head studies of biologic DMARDs that are currently enrolling or about to enroll RA subjects. Pharmaceutical companies have taken more interest in comparative effectiveness studies, in part due to the emphasis that has been placed on this type of research by the US federal government and associated organizations including the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Therefore, while there is currently a relative lack of comparative effectiveness research to inform clinical decisions about biologic DMARDs for RA patients, it appears likely that there will be wider availability of such data in the near future.

Recent trends in use of nonbiologic DMARDs and evaluation of their continuation rates in single and dual combination therapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Japan

We aim to examine changes in usage of nonbiologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and evaluate their continuation rates in Japan. We analyzed DMARD treatment data for 3,734 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from 1998 to 2009 at Juntendo Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. The DMARD usage rate per month was determined to evaluate RA treatment history in the last decade. We also evaluated continuation rates of nonbiologic DMARDs in single and combination therapies and number of nonbiologic DMARD combination therapies used in each patient. We found that nonbiologic DMARD usage has dramatically changed in the last decade, with the most commonly used DMARD shifting from bucillamine to methotrexate (MTX). MTX showed the highest continuation rate; however, much lower continuation rate was observed when used alone rather than in combination treatments. Further, MTX was also used in the highest number of different combination therapies for a particular patient. These findings indicate that single MTX treatment may be unable to keep patients in clinical remission or lower disease activity compared with several combination therapies. Recent change in permitted maximum dosage of MTX from 8 to 16mg/week may improve its efficacy and continuation rate in treating Japanese RA patients.

Regional and temporal variation in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis across the UK: a descriptive register-based cohort study

ObjectivesTo describe current disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) prescription in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with reference to best practice and to identify temporal and regional trends in the UK.DesignDescriptive, register-based cohort study.ParticipantsPermanently...

Conventional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis

AbstractRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by a symmetric polyarthritis of unknown etiology that, if untreated or unresponsive to therapy, typically leads to deformities and destruction of joints through the erosion of cartilage and bone. Currently available disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can control synovitis and may slow, or even stop, radiographic progression, improve function and quality of life, and normalize mortality rates. This review gives a brief overview on commonly used conventional DMARDs and their role in the current management of RA. Methotrexate is still considered the gold standard among the DMARDs, and is widely accepted as first‐line treatment in the management of RA. Other DMARDs are less frequently used in monotherapy or as first‐line agents but continue to have a role as antirheumatic agents in select patients. DMARD combination therapy may still represent a valuable therapeutic option in patients who fail to DMARD monotherapy or in whom combination therapy is considered initially. This review will focus on a better understanding of the critical importance of early DMARD treatment, the goal of remission and the need for tight control and adaptive modification in case of inadequate response or intolerance. Drug Dev Res 72:657–663, 2011. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Risk of hepatotoxicity with add-on leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is increasingly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Hepatotoxicity has been an important safety concern with DMARDs therapy. Though leflunomide (CAS 75706-12-6) has emerged as an effective oral DMARD, its use is associated with hepatotoxicity. Limited data is available regarding hepatotoxic risk when leflunomide is used in combination therapy in RA patients. An open-label, prospective study was conducted to evaluate the hepatotoxic risk after addition of leflunomide with other DMARDs in RA patients, who did not respond to their ongoing DMARD therapy. A total of 46 patients were enrolled and leflunomide was given as add-on therapy with earlier DMARDs. Biochemical parameters of serum aminotransferase levels (AST and ALT) were estimated at the baseline and then every month after addition of leflunomide. Study results showed that 13.0% patients developed > 1.5 to < 2 times upper limit of normal (ULN) elevation; 6.5% patients developed > 2 to < 3 times the ULN elevation and 2.2% patients developed > 3 times the ULN elevation. In 20% of the patients with hepatic enzyme elevations, enzyme levels returned to normal within 4-6 weeks after discontinuation of leflunomide therapy, whereas in 50% of patients the dose of leflunomide was reduced from 20 mg/day to 10 mg/day for normalization of enzymes levels. 30% of patients were continued with leflunomide without dose reduction. None of the patients showed clinical signs and symptoms of hepatotoxicity. Leflunomide therapy with other DMARDs requires strict monitoring of serum aminotransferases.

Supplementation of 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 in patients with treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled trial

1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 has immunomodulatory functions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is an anti-osteoporotic agent. No studies exist to assess its pain-relieving action in RA. An open-labeled randomized trial comparing triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and 500 IU 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 + calcium combination versus triple DMARD and calcium alone was conducted. The primary outcome was the time to pain relief by patients' visual analogue scale (VAS). Changes in VAS after first achievement of pain relief and after 3 months were noted. 25 hydroxy-vitamin D levels were correlated with disease activity scor (DAS-28), adjusting for sun exposure. Comparisons between the groups were done by Mann-Whitney test and independent samples test. Patients on the vitamin D group (n = 59) had higher pain relief than the control group (n = 62) (50%vs. 30%, P = 0.006). There was no significant difference in the time taken for initial pain relief between the two groups. Occurrence of hypovitaminosis D in RA patients (68.1%) is comparable to published normal Indian prevalence. There was no correlation between 25 hydroxy vitamin D levels and disease activity. Supplementation of 500 IU of 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 daily to previously DMARD-naïve patients with early RA along with triple DMARD therapy results in a significantly higher pain relief at the end of 3 months. The number needed to treat for this additional pain relief was 5. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the study population was 68.1%.

Early Management of Newly Diagnosed Rheumatoid Arthritis by Canadian Rheumatologists: A National, Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort

To describe early rheumatologic management for newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada. A retrospective cohort of 339 randomly selected patients with RA diagnosed from 2001-2003 from 18 rheumatology practices was audited between 2005-2007. The most frequent initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) included hydroxychloroquine (55.5%) and methotrexate (40.1%). Initial therapy with multiple DMARD (15.6%) or single DMARD and corticosteroid combinations (30.7%) was infrequent. Formal assessment measures were noted infrequently, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire (34.6%) and Disease Activity Score for 28 joints (8.9%). Initial pharmacotherapy is consistent with guidelines from the period. The infrequent reporting of multiple DMARD combinations and formal assessment measures has implications for current clinical management and warrants contemporary reassessment.

The use of conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in established RA

Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the main tool to treat any form of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Over the years, treatment strategies and use of DMARDs have changed. 'Tight control' and 'treat-to-target' are now the present paradigms. Combining DMARDs and adapting their dosages to obtain the best (clinical) result in individual RA patients with the least amount of medication has been and is studied worldwide. Literature results are mainly on early RA however, and they do not necessarily also apply to patients with established RA. Methotrexate (MTX) is the key conventional DMARD also for the treatment of established RA, and MTX often has to be combined with other DMARDs to reach low disease activity. However, there is lack of data on combination DMARD strategies and on how to treat best individual patients with established RA. In this review, we address these uncertainties and give an overview of available data.

Single-center, retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety of tacrolimus as a second-line DMARD in combination therapy and the risk factors contributing to adverse events in 115 patients with rheumatoid arthritis

To retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with tacrolimus (TAC) and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). One hundred fifteen rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with tacrolimus were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. We collected clinical information, including patient background, treatment efficacy (evaluated using the DAS score), and adverse events observed. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze factors contributing to clinical response and adverse effects. The disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28) improved significantly at 24weeks, and continuation rate at 1year was 57.9%. There was no difference in continuation rate between different DMARD combinations, and not only methotrexate (MTX) but also bucillamine (BUC) and salazosulfapyridine (SSZ) were effective combination partners with TAC. No serious adverse events were observed, and no different inefficacy or safety was observed between non-elderly (<65years old) and elderly (≥65years old) RA patients. By conducting multiple logistic regression analysis, combination therapy with MTX and TAC, the number of baseline DMARDs (specifically, ≥3), and old age were identified as risk factors for adverse events. Our findings indicate that TAC is a valuable DMARD for second-line combination therapy in RA.

Disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drug usage, prescribing patterns and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients in community‐based practice

Our aim was to examine the spectrum of disease activity and usage of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients seen over a period of 12 months in community-based rheumatology practice. Data were prospectively collected on 1059 consecutive RA patients who attended two private, community-based rheumatology clinics from 1 May 2007 to 1 May 2008. Information on patient demographics, medication history and disease activity was collected. Life table graphs were developed to track medication retention over time. Statistical significance was determined by log-rank tests. One thousand and fifty-nine patients with RA were entered into the database over a 12-month period. Eight hundred and twenty-six patients (85%) were treated with single or combination conventional DMARD compared with 159 patients (15%) on a biologic DMARD either alone or in combination. Methotrexate monotherapy was the most commonly prescribed DMARD, used in 41% of patients studied. Almost half (47%) were on combination DMARD therapy. Methotrexate and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had the highest retention rate over 12 and 30 months since first prescription. A large proportion of patients (47%) had moderate disease activity. Rates of biologic DMARD usage were similar to other studies and the predominance of methotrexate use was also in keeping with current recommendations for management of RA. There appears to be a significant unmet need for improved disease control among RA patients with moderate disease activity, which requires further investigation.

Children with Oligoarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis are at Considerable Risk for Growth Retardation

To assess linear growth in patients with persistent oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treated by intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACSI). Data were obtained from a retrospective review of the charts of 95 patients with persistent oligoarticular JIA (69 females). The mean age at first visit was 4.9 ± 3.4 years, with follow-up of 6 ± 3.7 years. The height SDS for chronologic age (z-score) was correlated with the clinical course of the disease and compared among patients treated by IACSI alone (group I) or by a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (group II). Growth retardation was found in 35.8% of patients (Δ z-score <-0.3), including 11.6% with severe growth retardation (Δ z-score <-1.0). Growth retardation was found in a smaller proportion of patients in group I (any growth retardation, 30.6%; severe growth retardation, 6.5%) than in patients in group II (any growth retardation, 44.4%; severe growth retardation, 21.2%; P < .05). Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate values (≥ 40 mm/1sth) indicated a significantly higher risk for growth retardation. All other clinical variables had no association with growth retardation. A significant proportion of patients with persistent oligoarticular JIA have growth retardation and a minority have severe growth retardation. Only elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate values were proven to be a good predictor of risk for growth retardation.