Effect of initiating biologics compared to intensifying conventional DMARDs on clinical and MRI outcomes in established rheumatoid arthritis patients in clinical remission: Secondary analyses of the IMAGINE-RA trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of treat-to-target-based escalations in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and biologics on clinical disease activity and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation in a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cohort in clinical remission. METHOD: One-hundred patients with established RA, Disease Activity Score based on 28-joint count-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, and no swollen joints (hereafter referred to as 'in clinical remission') who received csDMARDs underwent clinical evaluation and MRI of the wrist and second to fifth metacarpophalangeal joints every 4 months. They followed a 2 year MRI treatment strategy targeting DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2, no swollen joints, and absence of MRI osteitis, with predefined algorithmic treatment escalation: first: increase in csDMARDs; second: adding a biologic; third: switch biologic. MRI osteitis and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (co-primary outcomes) and MRI combined inflammation and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) (key secondary outcomes) were assessed 4 months after treatment change and expressed as estimates of group differences. Statistical analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population analysed using repeated-measures mixed models. RESULTS: Escalation to first biologic compared to csDMARD escalation more effectively reduced MRI osteitis (difference between least squares means 1.8, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.6), HAQ score (0.08, 0.03-0.1), MRI combined inflammation (2.5, 0.9-4.1), and SDAI scores (2.7, 1.9-3.5). CONCLUSIONS: Treat-to-target-based treatment escalations to biologics compared to escalation in csDMARDs more effectively improved MRI inflammation, physical function, and clinical disease activity in patients with established RA in clinical remission. Treatment escalation in RA patients in clinical remission reduces clinical and MRI-assessed disease activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01656278.

Effect of a treat-to-target strategy based on methotrexate and intra-articular betamethasone with or without additional cyclosporin on MRI-assessed synovitis, osteitis, tenosynovitis, bone erosion, and joint space narrowing in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from a 2-year randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (CIMESTRA).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a treat-to-target strategy based on methotrexate (MTX) and intra-articular (IA) betamethasone suppresses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-determined measures of disease activity and reduces joint destruction in early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) patients, and to investigate whether concomitant cyclosporin A (CyA) provides an additional effect. METHOD: In the 2-year randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target trial CIMESTRA, 160 patients with eRA (< 6 months) were randomized to MTX, intra-articular betamethasone and CyA, or placebo CyA. A total of 129 patients participated in the MRI substudy, and had contrast-enhanced MR images of the non-dominant hand at months 0, 6, 12, and 24. MR images were evaluated for osteitis, synovitis, tenosynovitis, bone erosion, and joint space narrowing (JSN), using validated scoring methods. RESULTS: Significant reductions were seen at 6 months in all inflammatory parameters [synovitis, mean change -1.6 (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon), tenosynovitis, -3.5 (p < 0.001), and osteitis, -1.3 (p < 0.05)] and at 12/24 months in synovitis and tenosynovitis [-1.6/-2.2 and -3.6/-3.8, respectively; all p < 0.001]. MRI signs of inflammation were not fully eliminated, and increases in erosion and JSN scores were observed at 6 months [0.4 (p < 0.01)/0.1 (p < 0.05)], 12 months [0.8 (p < 0.001)/0.3 (p < 0.01)], and 24 months [1.0 (p < 0.001)/0.4 (p < 0.001)]. Clinical measures decreased significantly (p < 0.001) at all time points. There were no consistent statistically significant differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this eRA treat-to-target trial, MTX and intra-articular glucocorticoids markedly reduced, but did not eliminate, MRI osteitis, synovitis, and tenosynovitis. Accordingly, minimal but statistically significant increases in bone erosion and JSN were observed. No additional effect of CyA was demonstrated.

Optimal use of MRI in clinical trials, clinical care and clinical registries of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly is more sensitive than clinical examination and conventional radiography (x-ray) for detection of inflammation (synovitis, bone marrow oedema (osteitis) and tenosynovitis) and damage (bone erosion and cartilage loss/joint space narrowing) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The question is when and how MRI should be used. The present article reviews our knowledge about, and provides suggestions for, the use of MRI in clinical trials, clinical care and clinical registries. In clinical trials, the OMERACT RA MRI scoring system (RAMRIS) is a thoroughly validated method which in less time and with fewer patients than x-ray can discriminate between different therapies regarding structural damage progression, and which on top of this offers detailed assessment of upstream inflammatory drivers of damage. In routine clinical care, MRI can contribute to an earlier diagnosis of RA, can reveal subclinical disease activity, e.g. in the synovium (synovitis) and bone (osteitis), and can provide information of strong prognostic significance for the subsequent disease course, which may be useful when deciding the treatment strategy. Future studies will clarify the benefits of including MRI in treat-to-target strategies. The benefits of incorporating MRI into clinical registries are not yet known, but may include improved knowledge about the real-life advantages of MRI, as well as opportunities to develop better clinical and laboratory composite measures to monitor and predict the disease course in RA. In conclusion, MRI has well-documented relevance in several settings in clinical trials and care, but not yet in clinical registries.