Remission Rates In Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Articles

Clinical remission of rheumatoid arthritis in a multicenter real-world study in Asia-Pacific region.

BackgroundClinical remission is an attainable goal for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). However, data on RA remission rates from multinational studies in the Asia-Pacific region are limited. We conducted a cross-sectional multicentric study to evaluate the clinical remission status and the related factors in RA patients in the Asia-Pacific region.MethodsRA patients receiving standard care were enrolled consecutively from 17 sites in 11 countries from APLAR RA SIG group. Data were collected on-site by rheumatologists with a standardized case-report form. Remission was analyzed by different definitions including disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28) based on ESR and CRP, clinical disease activity index (CDAI), simplified disease activity index (SDAI), Boolean remission definition, and clinical deep remission (CliDR). Logistic regression was used to determine related factors of remission.FindingsA total of 2010 RA patients was included in the study, the overall remission rates were 62•3% (DAS28-CRP), 35•5% (DAS28-ESR), 30•8% (CDAI), 26•5% (SDAI), 24•7% (Boolean), and 17•1% (CliDR), respectively, and varied from countries to countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) prescription rate was low (17•9%). Compared to patients in non-remission, patients in remission had higher rates of b/tsDMARDs usage and lower rates of GC usage. The favorable related factors were male sex, younger age, fewer comorbidities, fewer extra-articular manifestations (EAM), and use of b/tsDMARDs, while treatment with GC was negatively related to remission.InterpretationRemission rates were low and varied in the Asia-Pacific region. Treatment with b/tsDMARDs and less GC usage were related to higher remission rate. There is an unmet need for RA remission in the Asia-Pacific region.

Influence of dietary habits on depression among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A cross-sectional study using KURAMA cohort database.

ObjectiveAlthough mental disorder is one of the most common comorbidities of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is known as a critical influence on RA remission rates, there is little knowledge regarding a possible therapeutic strategy for depression or anxiety in a RA population. Most recently, clinical evidence of dietary improvement for depression has emerged in a general population, but the relationship between dietary habits and mental disorder has not been investigated in RA. The purpose of this study is to elucidate clinical associations between mental disorder (depression/anxiety), dietary habits and disease activity/physical function in patients with RA.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed with 267 female outpatients from the KURAMA database. Using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), we classified the participants into three groups by depression state, and their characteristics were compared. Using the 20-items on the self-reported food frequency questionnaire, we investigated the relationship between dietary habits and depression or anxiety, adopting a trend test and a multivariate standardized linear regression analysis for the HADS score of depression or that of anxiety as a dependent variable.ResultsAccording to the classified stage of depression, current disease activity (DAS28-CRP: 28-Joint RA Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein) and the health assessment questionnaire disability Index (HAQ-DI) were significantly increased. Trend analyses revealed that the depression score was inversely associated with the consumption of three food (fish, vegetables and fruit) out of twenty as was the anxiety score with only fish intake. Furthermore, multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the depression score was negatively associated with frequent fish intake (≥ 3 times per week) (Estimate -0.53, p = 0.033), HAQ-DI score within normal range (Estimate -0.88, p ≤ 0.001) and MTX use (Estimate -0.60, p ≤ 0.023). For the anxiety score, multivariate analysis showed similar but not significant associations with variables except for HAQ-DI score.ConclusionsIn a RA population, both depression and anxiety had a significant and negative association with HAQ-DI score, and depression rather than anxiety had negative association with frequent fish intake. Modification of dietary habits such as increased fish consumption may have a beneficial effect on the depression state in RA patients.

Clinical Remission of Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Multicenter Real-World Study in Asia-Pacific Region

Background: Clinical remission is an attainable goal for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). However, data on RA remission rates in Asia-Pacific region are lacking. We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the clinical remission status and the associated factors in RA patients in Asia-Pacific region. Methods: RA patients receiving standard care were enrolled consecutively from 17 sites in 11 countries. Data were collected on-site by rheumatologists with a standardized case-report form. Remission was analyzed by different definitions including disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28) based on ESR and CRP, clinical disease activity index (CDAI), simplified disease activity index (SDAI), Boolean remission definition, and clinical deep remission (CliDR). Logistic regression was used to determine associated factors of remission. Findings: A total of 2010 RA patients was included in the study, the overall remission rates were 62·31% (DAS28-CRP), 35·51% (DAS28-ESR), 30·78% (CDAI), 26·50% (SDAI), 24·71% (Boolean), and 17·06% (CliDR), respectively, and varied from sites to sites in the 11 countries. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) prescription rate was low (16·9%). Compared to patients in non-remission, patients in remission had higher rates of csDMARDs monotherapy, bDMARDs usage and lower rates of GC usage. The favorable factors were male sex, younger age, fewer comorbidities, less extra-articular manifestations (EAM), and use of bDMARDs, while treatment with GC was negatively associated with remission. Interpretation: Remission rates were low and varied in the Asia-Pacific region. Treatment with bDMARDs and less GC usage were related to higher remission rate. There is an unmet need for RA remission in the Asia-Pacific region. Funding Information: Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Project (Z191100006619110), Beijing Key Laboratory for Rheumatism Mechanism and Immune Diagnosis (BZ0135), Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences. Declaration of Interests: None. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the ethics committee of each center.

A comprehensive care program achieves high remission rates in rheumatoid arthritis in a middle-income setting. Experience of a Center of Excellence in Colombia.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in many Latin-American countries is impaired by fragmentation and scarce healthcare provision, resulting in obstacles to access, diagnosis, and treatment, and consequently in poor health outcomes. The aim of this study is to propose a comprehensive care program as a model to provide healthcare to RA patients receiving synthetic DMARDs in a Colombian setting by describing the model and its results. Health outcomes were prospectively collected in all patients entering the program. By protocol, patients are followed up during 24months using a treat-to-target strategy with a patient-centered care (PCC) model, meaning that a patient should be seen by rheumatologist, physical and occupational therapist, physiatrist, nutritionist and psychologist, at least three times a year according to disease activity by DAS28. Otherwise, patients receive standard therapy. The incidence of remission and low disease activity (LDA) was calculated by periods of follow-up. A total of 968 patients entered the program from January 2015 to December 2016; 80.2% were women. At baseline, 41% of patients were in remission, 17% in LDA and 42% in MDS/SDA. At 24months of follow-up, 66% were in remission, 18% in LDA and only 16% in MDS/SDA. Regarding DAS28, the mean at the beginning of the time analysis was 3.1 (SD 1.0) and after 24months it was 2.4 (SD 0.7), showing a statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001). In all patients, the reduction of disease activity was 65% (95% CI, 58-71). Patients entering the PCC program benefited from a global improvement in disease activity in terms of DAS28.

Defining and characterizing sustained remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The objective of this study is to characterize stability and clinical features of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) has increased remission rates in RA but optimal regimens to maintain remission are unknown. We describe Study of Etanercept And Methotrexate in Combination or as Monotherapy in Subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis (SEAM-RA) and data from a run-in period of longitudinal observation. Patients in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission (score ≤ 3.3) receiving etanercept and methotrexate were screened and had to maintain remission over 3 run-in visits/24 weeks before randomization to combination therapy or withdrawal of etanercept or methotrexate. Baseline characteristics were examined for predictive factors for maintaining remission. As of November 2016, 141 patients have enrolled; of these, 64 have been randomized, 34 were ineligible after run-in, and 43 are in run-in period; 70% have completed run-in. Enrolled and randomized patients, respectively, had mean (standard deviation [SD]) disease duration 11.0 (8.6) and 12.6 (9.7) years; mean (SD) duration of etanercept use 4.2 (3.8) and 4.9 (4.2) years; mean (SD) methotrexate dose 15.9 (4.8) and 15.5 (4.9) mg/week; and mean (SD) SDAI scores 1.5 (0.9) and 1.4 (0.8). At enrollment, 73% and 63% were in Boolean remission based on 28 joints and 66/68 joints, respectively. No enrollment characteristic predicted successful completion of run-in. Two-thirds of patients considered to be in remission at enrollment sustained remission through 24 weeks. Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients and those who completed run-in were comparable.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent. To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate. In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H). Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured. In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics. To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics. On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer). This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer. Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced). To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Starting Therapy with Tocilizumab Improves Early Remission Rates in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) usually are treated initially with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), preferably

Time trends in disease activity, response and remission rates in rheumatoid arthritis during the past decade: results from the NOR-DMARD study 2000–2010

ObjectivesTo investigate whether baseline disease activity levels and responses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) changed during the period 2000–2010.MethodsData were provided by the Norwegian disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (NOR-DMARD) study....

FRI0060 Trends in baseline disease activity, response and remission rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during the last decade: Results from the nor-DMARD register

BackgroundDuring the past decade there has been an increasing focus on early, aggressive treatment, and combined with the availability of biologicals this will likely lead to improved outcomes in patients...

OP0025 Results from a multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of sirukumab, a human anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

ObjectivesTo assess remission rates from a phase 2 study of sirukumab, a human monoclonal antibody against the cytokine interleukin-6 (formerly named CNTO 136), using the new provisional 2011 ACR/EULAR rheumatoid...

Validity and Reliability Problems with Patient Global as a Component of the ACR/EULAR Remission Criteria as Used in Clinical Practice

To investigate what factors influence patient global health assessment (PtGlobal), and how those factors and the reliability of PtGlobal affect the rate, reliability, and validity of recently published American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remission criteria when used in clinical practice. We examined consecutive patients with RA in clinical practice and identified 77 who met ACR/EULAR joint criteria for remission (≤ 1 swollen joint and ≤ 1 tender joint). We evaluated factors associated with a PtGlobal > 1, because a PtGlobal ≤ 1 defined ACR/EULAR remission in this group of patients who had already met ACR/EULAR joint criteria. Of the 77 patients examined, only 17 (22.1%) had PtGlobal ≤ 1 and thus fully satisfied ACR/EULAR criteria. A large proportion of patients not in remission by ACR/EULAR criteria had high PtGlobal related to noninflammatory issues, including low back pain, fatigue, and functional limitations, and a number of patients clustered in the range of PtGlobal > 1 and ≤ 2. However, the minimal detectable difference for PtGlobal was 2.3. In addition, compared with a PtGlobal severity score, a PtGlobal activity score was 3.3% less likely to be abnormal (> 1). Noninflammatory factors contribute to the level of PtGlobal and result in the exclusion of many patients who would otherwise be in "true" remission according to the ACR/EULAR definition. Reliability problems associated with PtGlobal can also result in misclassification, and may explain the observation of low longterm remission rates in RA. As currently constituted, the use of the ACR/EULAR remission criteria in clinical practice appears to be problematic.