Lilian H. D. van Tuyl

American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Definition of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis for Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. METHODS A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (e.g., tender and swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and global assessments on a 0-10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year followup data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score-based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patients RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (a) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0-10 scale) are all ≤ 1, or (b) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤ 3.3. CONCLUSION We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. We recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials

Objective Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. Methods A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analysed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. Results Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (eg, tender and swollen joint counts, C reactive protein (CRP) level, and global assessments on a 0–10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year follow-up data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score–based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patients RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (1) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0–10 scale) are all ≤1, or (2) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤3.3. Conclusion We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. The authors recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

Survival, comorbidities and joint damage 11 years after the COBRA combination therapy trial in early rheumatoid arthritis.

Background COBRA (for ‘COmbinatie therapie Bij Rheumatoide Artritis’) combination therapy is effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but long-term safety is unknown. This study evaluates survival, comorbidities and joint damage in the original COBRA trial cohort. Methods In the COBRA trial, 155 patients with early RA were treated with sulfasalazine (SSZ) monotherapy (SSZ group) or a combination of step-down prednisolone, methotrexate (MTX) and SSZ (COBRA group). The current 11-year follow-up study of the COBRA trial invited all original patients and performed protocollised scrutiny of clinical records, questionnaires, physical examination, laboratory and imaging tests. Results In all, 152 out of 155 patients yielded at least partial data. After a mean of 11 years follow-up, 18 (12%) patients had died, 6 COBRA patients and 12 SSZ patients, HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.52). Treatment for hypertension was significantly more prevalent in the COBRA group (p=0.02) with similar trends for diabetes and cataract. Conversely, hypercholesterolaemia, cancer and infection showed a trend in favour of COBRA. Other comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and fractures appeared in similar frequency. Radiographic findings suggest as a minimum sustained benefit for COBRA therapy, that is, difference in joint damage but similar subsequent progression rates after 5 years. Imputation to compensate for selective dropout suggests increasing benefit for COBRA, that is, difference in yearly progression rates similar to that seen in the first 5 years of follow-up. Conclusions After 11 years, initial COBRA combination therapy resulted in numerically lower mortality and similar prevalence of comorbidity compared with initial SSZ monotherapy. In addition, lower progression of joint damage suggests long-term disease modification.

Baseline RANKL:OPG ratio and markers of bone and cartilage degradation predict annual radiological progression over 11 years in rheumatoid arthritis

Objective To determine to what extent baseline measurements of the ratio receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL):osteoprotegerin (OPG) and C-terminal cross linking of type-I and type-II (CTX-I and CTX-II), in addition to traditional markers of disease severity, could predict annual radiological progression. Methods A cohort of 155 patients with early, active, untreated rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who participated in the Combination Therapy in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis trial (COBRA trial) was followed up for 11 years. Urine was sampled at baseline and after 3 months from the start of treatment and analysed for CTX-I and CTX-II. Baseline serum samples were analysed for RANKL and OPG. Available traditional markers of disease severity included baseline measurements of erythrocyte sedimentation rate, rheumatoid factor and baseline radiological damage. A digital database of frequent radiographs was available, scored according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. Individual annual progression rates were calculated and used as outcome variable. Multiple linear regression analyses identified the strongest predictors of annual radiological progression. Results In multivariable analyses the RANKL:OPG ratio and CTX-I or CTX-II proved to be independent predictors of annual radiological damage over 11 years. The prediction of annual radiological progression was strongest when the RANKL:OPG ratio and CTX-I or CTX-II were evaluated in the same model (36–39% explained variance). Adding the effect of treatment at 3 months to the baseline models improved the predictive ability of the models up to 44–46%. Conclusion Unfavourable baseline levels of the RANKL:OPG ratio as well as CTX-I and CTX-II in patients with early, active, untreated RA are strong independent predictors of rapid and persistent damage progression over the 11-year follow-up. Early improvement in bone markers by treatment predicts a better outcome.

Defining Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of an Initial American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Consensus Conference

OBJECTIVE Due to advances in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapies over the last few years, an increasing proportion of patients are able to achieve a state of remission. However, the definition of remission is unclear. Currently, randomized controlled trials around the world use different remission definitions and consequently measure different aspects of a patients disease state. The need for a uniform definition of remission is vital for research findings to be correctly interpreted. METHODS The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) constituted a committee that included international clinical researchers, trialists, and clinical epidemiologists in order to redefine remission in RA. This group was asked to study current definitions of remission, explore the theoretical underpinning of the concept of remission, and develop a research agenda that would inform future work in the development of an ACR definition of remission. RESULTS In its first meeting, the committee preferred to develop a strict definition, implying no or very low disease activity. Such a definition would need to be validated against long-term outcome, e.g., physical function and damage. CONCLUSION The committee decided to consider both a definition for trials and a modified version for clinical practice. Since the first meeting, the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) have decided to sponsor this initiative as an official ACR/EULAR collaboration.

Evidence for Predictive Validity of Remission on Long-Term Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Remission is rapidly becoming a key end point in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials, but its definition is not satisfactory. Although it is generally believed that achieving a state of remission will lead to better structural outcome, this has not been studied systematically. As part of an undertaking to redefine remission, the current review describes the relationship between remission and long‐term structural outcome.

(Sub)clinical cardiovascular disease is associated with increased bone loss and fracture risk; a systematic review of the association between cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis

IntroductionBoth cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis are important causes of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. The co-occurrence of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis prompted us to review the evidence of an association between cardiovascular (CV) disease and osteoporosis and potential shared common pathophysiological mechanisms.MethodsA systematic literature search (Medline, Pubmed and Embase) was conducted to identify all clinical studies that investigated the association between cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. Relevant studies were screened for quality according to guidelines as proposed by the Dutch Cochrane Centre and evidence was summarized.ResultsSeventy studies were included in this review. Due to a large heterogeneity in study population, design and outcome measures a formal meta-analysis was not possible. Six of the highest ranked studies (mean n = 2,000) showed that individuals with prevalent subclinical CV disease had higher risk for increased bone loss and fractures during follow-up compared to persons without CV disease (range of reported risk: hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; odds ratio (OR) 2.3 to 3.0). The largest study (n = 31,936) reported a more than four times higher risk in women and more than six times higher risk in men. There is moderate evidence that individuals with low bone mass had higher CV mortality rates and incident CV events than subjects with normal bone mass (risk rates 1.2 to 1.4). Although the shared common pathophysiological mechanisms are not fully elucidated, the most important factors that might explain this association appear to be, besides age, estrogen deficiency and inflammation.ConclusionsThe current evidence indicates that individuals with prevalent subclinical CV disease are at increased risk for bone loss and subsequent fractures. Presently no firm conclusions can be drawn as to what extent low bone mineral density might be associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

Validation of the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: slight improvement over the 1987 ACR criteria

Background Recently, an American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) collaboration developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objective To evaluate the diagnostic and discriminative ability of these new criteria compared with the 1987 ACR criteria and the Visser decision rule. Methods 455 patients with early arthritis were studied. The diagnostic performance of the criteria was evaluated using methotrexate treatment within 1 year, expert opinion RA and erosive disease as ‘gold standards’. Erosive disease was defined as a 0–3 year change in radiographic score of ≥5. Results The discriminative ability of the three criteria sets (2010 ACR/EULAR, 1987 ACR criteria and Visser algorithm) was similar with areas under the curve of 0.71–0.78 (‘gold standard’ methotrexate), 0.74–0.80 (gold standard expert opinion RA) and 0.63–0.67 (gold standard erosive disease after 3 years). The sensitivity of the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria was highest with 0.85 (gold standard methotrexate). 86% of patients with RA and 51% of ‘non-RA’ patients according to the new criteria used methotrexate. Conclusion The 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria were slightly more sensitive, but otherwise performed similarly to the older criteria. A high percentage of ‘non-RA’ patients used methotrexate, the gold standard for RA. The ability of the new criteria to identify patients with erosive disease was low, possibly owing to the effect of intensive treatment.

The patient perspective on remission in rheumatoid arthritis: ‘You've got limits, but you're back to being you again’

OBJECTIVES The aim of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is remission. As treatment should be targeted at outcomes relevant to patients, it is important to understand how patients perceive remission, and to assess whether the current definition of remission adequately reflects these perceptions. The objective of this study is to explore the patient perspective on remission in RA. METHODS Nine focus-group discussions in Austria, The Netherlands and UK were conducted, including patients in American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/ European League of Rheumatology (EULAR) remission, self-declared remission and in moderate/high disease activity. Moderators employed a prespecified interview guide helped to engage patients in a discussion on their experience with remission. Inductive thematic analysis was performed within each country, and identified themes were discussed across countries. RESULTS 47 RA patients (66% women, disease duration 9 years) participated. Three major themes of patient-perceived remission emerged: (1) symptoms would either be absent or strongly reduced, (2) impact of the disease on daily life would diminish by increased independence, ability to do valued activities, improved mood and ability to cope; (3) leading to a return to normality, including work, family role and perception of others. Patients felt the concept of remission was influenced by ageing, side effects of medication, comorbidities, accrued damage to joints and disease duration. Opinions on duration of state, the role of medication and measurement instruments varied widely. CONCLUSIONS Patients characterise remission by the absence or reduction of symptoms, but more directly by decreased daily impact of their condition and the feeling of a return to normality. The next step is to study whether an additional patient-perceived measure of remission may add value to the ACR/EULAR definition of remission.

Why are Dutch rheumatologists reluctant to use the COBRA treatment strategy in early rheumatoid arthritis

Background: The Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis (COBRA) trial has proved that combination therapy with prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine is superior to sulphasalazine monotherapy in suppressing disease activity and radiological progression of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In addition, 5 years of follow-up proved that COBRA therapy results in sustained reduction of the rate of radiological progression. Despite this evidence, Dutch rheumatologists seem reluctant to prescribe COBRA therapy. Objective: To explore the reasons for the reluctance in Dutch rheumatologists to prescribe COBRA therapy. Methods: A short structured questionnaire based on social–psychological theories of behaviour was sent to all Dutch rheumatologists (n = 230). Results: The response rate was 50%. COBRA therapy was perceived as both effective and safe, but complex to administer. Furthermore, rheumatologists expressed their concern about the large number of pills that had to be taken, the side effects of high-dose prednisolone and the low dose of methotrexate. Although the average attitude towards the COBRA therapy was slightly positive (above the neutral point), the majority of responding rheumatologists had a negative intention (below the neutral point) to prescribe COBRA therapy in the near future. Conclusion: The reluctance of Dutch rheumatologists to prescribe effective COBRA therapy may be due to perceptions of complexity of the treatment schedule and negative patient-related consequences of the therapy.