Variable impacts of different remission states on health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Targeting remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability. However, the impacts of different remission criteria and durations and their frequencies are uncertain. Our observational study assessed these factors. METHODS: We recruited RA patients with disease durations <10 years, stable suppressive therapies and stable disease activity scores for 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR) ≤3.2. Intermittent and sustained remisisons were classified using DAS28ESR, simple disease activity index (SDAI) and ACR/EULAR Boolean criteria. HRQoL, measured using SF-36, fatigue, EuroQol and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) was compared using time-integrated areas under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: 104 patients were enrolled and followed for 12 months. DAS28-ESR remissions were intermittent in 42%, sustained in 47% and absent in 11%. Boolean remissions were intermittent in 38%, sustained in 10% and absent in 52%. Baseline remissions by all criteria significantly improved HAQ, Euroqol, SF36 and fatigue scores compared with low disease activity (LDAS); AUCs showed significant benefits for all HRQoLs persisted over 12-months. Boolean remissions achieved most benefits. Over time all remission states gave significantly better HRQoL scores than LDAS. Sustained DAS28ESR and SDAI remissions improved HRQoL more than intermittent remissions. Sustained and intermittent Boolean remissions gave similar improvements. Analysis of SF-36 domains showed even sustained Boolean remissions failed to optimise pain and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: All remissions improve HRQoL but different criteria have variable impacts. Boolean remission had most impact but occurred least. There are trade-off between optimising individual impacts (Boolean remissions) and achieving maximal overall impacts (DAS28-ESR remissions).

Changing clinical patterns in rheumatoid arthritis management over two decades: sequential observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment paradigms have shifted over the last two decades. There has been increasing emphasis on combination disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, newer biologic therapies have become available and there is a greater focus on achieving remission. We have evaluated the impact of treatment changes on disease activity scores for 28 joints (DAS28) and disability measured by the health assessment questionnaire scores (HAQ). METHODS: Four cross-sectional surveys between 1996 and 2014 in two adjacent secondary care rheumatology departments in London evaluated changes in drug therapy, DAS28 and its component parts and HAQ scores (in three surveys). Descriptive statistics used means and standard deviations (SD) or medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) to summarise changes. Spearman's correlations assessed relationships between assessments. RESULTS: 1324 patients were studied. Gender ratios, age and mean disease duration were similar across all cohorts. There were temporal increases in the use of any DMARDs (rising from 61% to 87% of patients from 1996-2014), combination DMARDs (1% to 41%) and biologic (0 to 32%). Mean DAS28 fell (5.2 to 3.7), active disease (DAS28 > 5.1) declined (50% to 18%) and DAS28 remission (DAS28 < 2.6) increased (8% to 28%). In contrast HAQ scores were unchanged (1.30 to 1.32) and correlations between DAS28 and HAQ weakened (Spearman's rho fell from 0.56 to 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensity has increased over time, disease activity has fallen and there are more remissions. However, these improvements in controlling synovitis have not resulted in comparable reductions in disability measured by HAQ. As a consequence the relationship between DAS28 and HAQ has become weaker over time. Although the reasons for this divergence between disease activity and disability are uncertain, focussing treatment entirely in suppressing synovitis may be insufficient.

Can we discontinue synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis?

OBJECTIVES: When rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients have achieved sustained good clinical responses can their disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) be reduced or discontinued? This review addresses this question by summarising the clinical evidence about DMARD withdrawal. It includes an assessment of predictive factors for sustained DMARD-free remissions. METHODS: We evaluated the evidence for discontinuing DMARDs in stable RA in both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RESULTS: Six RCTs evaluated DMARD monotherapy withdrawal in 501 RA patients with good clinical responses. Flares occurred in 43/248 (17%) patients who continued DMARD monotherapy and in 117/253 (46%) patients who discontinued DMARDs. Individuals in whom DMARDs were withdrawn were three times more likely to have flares. Restarting DMARDs post-flare was usually successful. Four RCTs evaluated step-down DMARD combinations in comparison to DMARD monotherapy. Patients achieved good clinical responses with combination DMARDs, which were maintained after treatment was tapered to DMARD monotherapy. Four observational studies of tapering or stopping DMARDs in patients with sustained low disease activity states provided supportive evidence for discontinuing DMARDs in some patients. Flares during drug-free remissions were predicted by rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-free remission is achievable in some RA patients. Discontinuation of DMARDs after patients achieve sustained remissions results in flares in many patients, which can usually be reversed by restarting DMARDs. Step-down DMARD combinations are effective and achieve sustained responses. Further research is required to establish predictors of drug-free remission; these will identify individuals most likely to benefit or experience disease flares after discontinuing DMARDs.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of methotrexate in psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: MTX is widely used to treat synovitis in PsA without supporting trial evidence. The aim of our study was to test the value of MTX in the first large randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) in PsA. METHODS: A 6-month double-blind RCT compared MTX (15 mg/week) with placebo in active PsA. The primary outcome was PsA response criteria (PsARC). Other outcomes included ACR20, DAS-28 and their individual components. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation methods. Treatments were compared using logistic regression analysis (adjusted for age, sex, disease duration and, where appropriate, individual baseline scores). RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-two patients were screened and 221 recruited. One hundred and nine patients received MTX and 112 received placebo. Forty-four patients were lost to follow-up (21 MTX, 23 placebo). Twenty-six patients discontinued treatment (14 MTX, 12 placebo). Comparing MTX with placebo in all randomized patients at 6 months showed no significant effect on PsARC [odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% CI 0.97, 3.23], ACR20 (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65, 6.22) or DAS-28 (OR 1.70, 95% CI 0.90, 3.17). There were also no significant treatment effects on tender and swollen joint counts, ESR, CRP, HAQ and pain. The only benefits of MTX were reductions in patient and assessor global scores and skin scores at 6 months (P = 0.03, P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). There were no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This trial of active PsA found no evidence for MTX improving synovitis and consequently raises questions about its classification as a disease-modifying drug in PsA. Trial registration. Current Controlled Trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN:54376151.

Current limitations in the management of cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with excess cardiovascular (CV) disease. Many studies have shown subclinical atherosclerosis in RA is associated with CV risk factors and inflammation. Their relationship with CV events has however received less attention. Furthermore, except for hypertension CV risk factor management has not been examined in a UK RA population. We therefore evaluated the contribution of RA specific and CV risk factors to CV events alongside the management of CV risk factors in RA patients. METHODS: We assessed the prevalence, screening and treatment of CV risk factors in a cross-sectional survey of RA patients consecutively attending specialist clinics. We used binary logistic regression to examine relationships between CV events and RA and CV risk factors. RESULTS: We enrolled 309 patients (81% female; median age 60 years; median disease duration 8 years). 27 (9%) had previous CV events. 56% had hypertension, 42% hyperlipidaemia, 11% diabetes, 52% were ex/current smokers and 26% obese. Lipid status was unknown in one third. 47% of patients on anti-hypertensive agents were undertreated. CV events were associated with hyperlipidaemia (OR 13.5; 95% CI 3.9, 45.9), hypertension (OR 6.4; 95% CI 1.9, 21.9), having ever smoked (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.1, 6.5), RA duration (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.06, 1.13) and erosions (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.1, 8.2). CONCLUSIONS: CV events are prevalent in RA. They are associated with CV risks and RA factors. Despite this burden we found CV risk factors were inadequately managed. A robust system to identify and treat CV risks in RA is required.

Perceived barriers to integrated care in rheumatoid arthritis: views of recipients and providers of care in an inner-city setting.

BACKGROUND: A number of recent reports published in the UK have put the quality of care of adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) centre stage. These documents set high standards for health care professionals and commissioning bodies that need to be implemented into routine clinical practice. We therefore have obtained the views of recipients and providers of care in inner city settings as to what they perceive are the barriers to providing integrated care. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and face to face interviews between 2005-8 with 79 participants (patients, carers, specialist medical and nursing outpatient staff and general practitioners (GPs)) working in or attending three hospitals and three primary care trusts (PCT). RESULTS: Three barriers were identified that stood in the way of seamless integrated care in RA from the perspective of patients, carers, specialists and GPs: (i) early referral (e.g. 'gate keeper's role of GPs); (ii) limitations of ongoing care for established RA (e.g. lack of consultation time in secondary care) and (iii) management of acute flares (e.g. pressure on overbooked clinics). CONCLUSION: This timely study of the multi-perspective views of recipients and providers of care was conducted during the time of publications of many important reports in the United Kingdom (UK) that highlighted key components in the provision of high quality care for adults with RA. To achieve seamless care across primary and secondary care requires organisational changes, greater personal and professional collaboration and GP education about RA.

A systematic comparison of combination DMARD therapy and tumour necrosis inhibitor therapy with methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: We examined how combination DMARD therapies and TNF inhibitors therapies plus MTX (TNF/MTX) affect clinical and radiological outcomes compared with MTX monotherapy in early RA. METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed and Ovid Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of combination therapy in early RA. We evaluated ACR responses, withdrawals for inefficacy and toxicity, HAQ and radiographic progression. Meta-analysis using Review Manager evaluated random effects odds ratios (ORs) and random effects weighted mean differences (WMDs) between treatments. RESULTS: A preliminary search identified 2029 citations; 15 were relevant RCTs (4200 randomized patients). Patients with active disease were enrolled. Compared with MTX monotherapy, both combination DMARDs and TNF/MTX increased ACR20-70 responses (OR 1.64-2.02 and 2.03-2.30, respectively), reduced withdrawals for inefficacy (OR 0.52 and 0.29), reduced HAQ (WMD -0.17 and -0.16) and reduced annual X-ray progression (WMD -1.20 and -0.84%). DMARD combinations increased withdrawals for toxicity (OR 2.69; there was no difference with TNF/MTX). The only head-to-head RCT showed comparable efficacy for combination DMARDs and TNF/MTX combinations. CONCLUSIONS: In early active RA, both combination DMARDs and TNF/MTX are more effective than MTX monotherapy. DMARD and TNF/MTX combinations had equal efficacy on ACR response, withdrawals for inefficacy, disability and erosive progression. There is an apparent advantage for TNF/MTX combinations in the effect on toxicity with fewer consequent patients. We conclude that there is strong evidence in favour of combination treatment for RA but there is still uncertainty about which regimen is preferable.

Fibromyalgic rheumatoid arthritis and disease assessment.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated fibromyalgic RA to determine its clinical impact, identification using core clinical assessments and influence identifying active disease using disease activity scores (DAS-28). METHODS: We examined the impact and identification using core clinical assessments (tender minus swollen joint counts) of fibromyalgic RA (> or =11 tender points) in initial (105 patients) and replicate (100 patients) cohorts. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves optimized the cut-off points using tender minus swollen joint counts; their validity was confirmed in a routine practice cohort (321 patients). We evaluated whether fibromyalgic RA affected the identification of active disease using DAS-28 (> or =5.1) and the clinical disease activity index (CDAI). RESULTS: A total of 18/105 and 12/100 patients in initial and replicate cohorts, respectively, had fibromyalgic RA. This was identified by > or =7 tender minus swollen joint counts with 83% sensitivity and 80% specificity in the initial cohort (72 and 98% in replicate, respectively) and ROC area under the curve 0.80 (0.94 in replicate). 'Fibromyalgic' RA (tender point scores in initial and tender minus swollen joints in clinical practice cohorts) had higher DAS-28, pain, fatigue and HAQ scores. More fibromyalgic RA patients had active disease by DAS-28 (odds ratio 14.3; 95% CI 5.5, 37.1; and CDAI 17.2; 95% CI 6.1, 48.5); conventional assessments (three or more tender joints; three or more swollen joints; ESR > or =28 mm/h) showed no difference (1.75; 95% CI 0.72, 4.3). CONCLUSION: Fibromyalgic RA affects 12-17% of RA outpatients and results in worse functional outcomes. DAS-28 scores over-interpret active disease in fibromyalgic RA.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cardiac failure: meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: To determine the risks of cardiac failure with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the specific risks with Cox-2 specific NSAIDs (COXIBs). METHODS: We performed meta-analyses examining the risks of developing cardiac failure in observational studies and in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with arthritis and non-rheumatic disorders. Electronic databases and published bibliographies were systematically searched (1997-2008). RESULTS: Five case-control studies (4657 patients, 45,862 controls) showed a non-significant association between NSAIDs and cardiac failure in a random effect model (odds ratio (OR) 1.36; 95% CI 0.99-1.85). Two cohort studies (27,418 patient years, 55,367 control years) showed a significant risk of cardiac failure with NSAIDs (relative risk 1.97; 95% CI 1.73-2.25). Six placebo-controlled trials (naproxen, rofecoxib and celecoxib) in non-rheumatic diseases (15,750 patients) showed more cardiac failure with NSAIDs (Peto OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.34, 4.00). Six RCTs comparing conventional NSAIDs and COXIBs in arthritis (62,653 patients) showed no difference in cardiac failure risk (Peto OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53). CONCLUSION: Observational studies and RCTs all show that NSAIDs increase the risk of cardiac failure. Overall risks are relatively small and are similar with conventional NSAIDs and COXIBs. Pre-existing cardiac failure increases risk.

Assessing the effectiveness of synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory arthritis the primary manifestations of which are locomotor and skin disease. Although a number of guidelines have been published citing strategies for reducing disease progression, the evidence base for disease-modifying agents is unclear. This forms the focus of this systematic review. METHODS: The systematic review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 checklist. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that looked at the impact of interventions with disease-modifying agents, either synthetic drugs or biologics on musculoskeletal outcomes, notably American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders. Results were analyzed using Review Manager 5.1.6 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Whilst our primary focus was on published trials, we also looked at new trials presented in abstract form in 2013-2014 that were not yet published to avoid omitting important and up-to-date information on developing treatments. RESULTS: Our in-depth analysis included 28 trials overall enrolling 5,177 patients published between the 1980s and now as well as limited analysis of some studies in abstract form as described earlier. The most frequently available locomotor outcome measure was the American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders. The risk ratio for achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders response was positive in favor of treatment (risk ratio 2.30; 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.96); however, there was evidence of considerable heterogeneity between trials. Overall randomized controlled trials of established synthetic disease-modifying agents were largely negative (methotrexate, ciclosporin and sulfasalazine) though leflunomide showed a small positive effect. A new synthetic agent, apremilast, did show a positive benefit. For biologics, TNF inhibitors already licensed for use were effective and similar benefits were seen with newer agents including ustekinumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, and abatacept, although the latter did not impact on skin problems. Important limitations of the systematic review included, first, the fact that for many agents there were little data and, second, much of the recent data for newer biologics were only available in abstract form. CONCLUSION: Conventional disease-modifying agents, with the possible exception of leflunomide, do not show clear evidence of disease-modifying effects in psoriatic arthritis, though a newer synthetic disease-modifying agents, apremilast, appears more effective. Biologic agents appear more beneficial, although more evidence is required for newer agents. This review suggests that it may be necessary to review existing national and international management guidelines for psoriatic arthritis.

Calprotectin as a biomarker for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Calprotectin (myeloid-related protein 8/14), a heterodimeric complex of calcium-binding proteins, is expressed in granulocytes and monocytes. Calprotectin levels are high in synovial tissue, particularly in activated cells adjacent to the cartilage-pannus junction. This systematic review evaluates the use of calprotectin as an indicator of disease activity, therapeutic response, and prognosis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library (1970-2013) were searched for studies containing original data from patients with RA in whom calprotectin levels were measured in plasma/serum and/or synovial fluid (SF). We included studies examining associations between calprotectin levels and clinical and laboratory assessments, disease progression, and therapeutic response. There were no restrictions for sample size, disease duration, or length of followup. RESULTS: We evaluated 17 studies (1988-2013) with 1065 patients enrolled; 11 were cross-sectional and 8 had longitudinal designs with 2 studies reporting cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Systemic and SF levels of calprotectin were raised in RA. There was a wide range of levels and marked interstudy and intrastudy variability. Calprotectin levels were high in active disease and were particularly high in rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive patients. Levels fell with effective treatment. Longitudinal data showed that calprotectin was a significant and independent predictor of erosive progression and therapeutic responses, particularly in patients who received effective biological treatments. CONCLUSION: SF calprotectin levels are high, suggesting there is substantial local production by inflamed synovium. Blood calprotectin levels, though highly variable, are elevated in active RA and fall with effective therapy. High baseline calprotectin levels predict future erosive damage.

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors versus combination intensive therapy with conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: TACIT non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intensive combinations of synthetic disease modifying drugs can achieve similar clinical benefits at lower costs to high cost biologics such as tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis resistant to initial methotrexate and other synthetic disease modifying drugs. DESIGN: Open label pragmatic randomised multicentre two arm non-inferiority trial over 12 months. SETTING: 24 rheumatology clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were eligible for treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors according to current English guidance were randomised to either the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy or the combined disease modifying drug strategy. INTERVENTIONS: Biologic strategy: start tumour necrosis factor inhibitor; second biologic in six month for non-responders. Alternative strategy: start combination of disease modifying drugs; start tumour necrosis factor inhibitors after six months in non-responders. PRIMARY OUTCOME: reduction in disability at 12 months measured with patient recorded heath assessment questionnaire (range 0.00-3.00) with a 0.22 non-inferiority margin for combination treatment versus the biologic strategy. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: quality of life, joint damage, disease activity, adverse events, and costs. Intention to treat analysis used multiple imputation methods for missing data. RESULTS: 432 patients were screened: 107 were randomised to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and 101 started taking; 107 were randomised to the combined drug strategy and 104 started taking the drugs. Initial assessments were similar; 16 patients were lost to follow-up (seven with the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy, nine with the combined drug strategy); 42 discontinued the intervention but were followed-up (19 and 23, respectively). The primary outcome showed mean falls in scores on the health assessment questionnaire of -0.30 with the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy and -0.45 with the alternative combined drug strategy. The difference between groups in unadjusted linear regression analysis favoured the alternative strategy of combined drugs. The mean difference was -0.14, and the 95% confidence interval (-0.29 to 0.01) was below the prespecified non-inferiority boundary of 0.22. Improvements at 12 months in secondary outcomes, including quality of life and erosive progression, were similar with both strategies. Initial reductions in disease activity were greater with the biologic strategy, but these differences did not persist beyond six months. Remission was seen in 72 patients (44 with biologic strategy; 36 with alternative strategy); 28 patients had serious adverse events (18 and 10, respectively); six and 10 patients, respectively, stopped treatment because of toxicity. The alternative strategy reduced health and social care costs per patient by £3615 (€4930, $5585) for months 0-6 and £1930 for months 6-12. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who meet English criteria for biologics an alternative strategy with combinations of intensive synthetic disease modifying drugs gives non-inferior outcomes to treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Costs are reduced substantially.Trial Registration ISRCTN 37438295.

The impact of rheumatoid arthritis on quality-of-life assessed using the SF-36: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The assessment of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is becoming increasingly common in both research and clinical practice. One of the most widely used tools for measuring HRQoL is the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). We conducted a systematic review examining the impact of RA on HRQoL, measured through the SF-36. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies reporting mean and standard deviation scores for each domain of the SF-36 in adult RA patients. Studies were reviewed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 31 studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, including 22,335 patients. Meta-analyses found that pooled mean HRQoL score for the SF-36 physical component summary was 34.1 (95% CI: 22.0-46.1) and mental component summary was 45.6 (95% CI: 30.3-60.8). Increased age was associated with reduced physical function and physical component summary (PCS) scores but improved mental health and mental component summary (MCS) scores. Female gender was associated with improved scores on role physical, bodily pain and PCS but reduced mental health and MCS scores. Longer disease duration was associated with improved MCS. Patients with RA have a substantially reduced HRQoL in comparison to both other physical illnesses and in comparison to normative datasets from UK and USA populations. CONCLUSIONS: RA has a substantial impact on HRQoL. This supports recent NICE guidelines stipulating that RA patients should be regularly assessed for the impact their disease has on HRQoL and appropriate management provided.

Remission in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed remission as an outcome measure in observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our objectives were to identify its frequency using different criteria, to determine the influence of different treatment strategies on remission, and to review the effects of remission on radiological outcomes. METHODS: Pubmed, Medline and Embase were searched using the following terms: Early Rheumatoid Arthritis or Early RA combined with Remission, Treatment, anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) or Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARD). Remissions were reported using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and Disease Activity Score (DAS) criteria. RESULTS: Seventeen observational studies (4762 patients) reported remission in 27% of patients, 17% by ACR criteria and 33% by DAS criteria. Twenty RCT (4 comparing DMARD monotherapies, 13 comparing monotherapy with combination therapies, 3 comparing combination therapies) enrolled 4290 patients. ACR remissions occurred in 16% receiving DMARD monotherapy and 24% combination therapies (random effects OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12-2.36). DAS remissions occurred in 26% and 42%, respectively (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.46-2.78). Observational studies showed continuing radiological progression despite remission. RCT showed less radiological progression in remission when treated with combination therapy compared to monotherapies. CONCLUSION: Remission is a realistic treatment goal in early RA. Combination therapies using DMARD with or without TNF inhibitors increase remissions. Radiological progression occurred in remission but is reduced by combination therapies. ACR and DAS remission criteria are not directly comparable and standardization is needed.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs other than methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative arthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To outline recent research findings with nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative arthritis spanning systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational clinical practice trials and assessments of adverse effects. RECENT FINDINGS: Systematic reviews show no important differences between methotrexate, leflunomide and sulfasalazine monotherapies; early disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy reduces erosive progression. Observational studies show that nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are widely prescribed; their usage has increased in the biologic era. A systemic review also showed patients who failed monotherapy benefited from disease-modifying antirheumatic drug combinations without excess toxicity. Randomized controlled trials of intensive initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug combinations showed they reduce synovitis and erosive damage, especially when used with steroids. The subsequent sequence of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the value of changing disease-modifying antirheumatic drug monotherapies or stepping-up to combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are, however, unresolved. The adverse risks of nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been evaluated, including infections and lung disease; patient-related risks seem more important than drug-related risks, though several disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs increase both types of adverse reactions. Two limitations of nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are reduced impact on comorbidities like cardiovascular disease and reduced patient and clinician preferences for these treatments. SUMMARY: Nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are effective, relatively well tolerated and widely used. Their role in intensive treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis appears of crucial importance.

Use of imaging to assess patients with muscle disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A variety of imaging modalities can be used in muscle diseases. These range from plain x-rays to conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and phosphate magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). This review places these imaging methods into their relevant clinical contexts on the basis of the best available research evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: Plain x-rays have limited roles in imaging patients with muscle disease. An exception is identifying calcinosis in patients with myositis; there is some evidence that effective early treatment may reduce its frequency and severity. Scintigraphy has been used in several centers but it appears to have limited value. Ultrasound, though successfully used in a number of units, is relatively little used, though the evidence suggests it would be sensible if this method were adopted more widely. MRI is currently the key imaging modality. It is useful in diagnosing pyomyositis, diabetic muscle infarction, and inflammatory myositis. Its main proven value is identifying the best sites for biopsy in early myositis, though it can help differentiate between different forms of muscle disease when there is diagnostic uncertainty. The area of most intense ongoing original research is MRS, which can show the bioenergetics of normal and abnormal muscles. Changes in the ratios of inorganic phosphate and phosphocreatine, particularly during exercise provide insights into the metabolic consequences of muscle diseases and may, in the future, suggest alternative therapeutic approaches. SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging is a useful adjunct when diagnosing muscle diseases. It is particularly useful to identify suitable sites for muscle biopsy. Ultrasound may be equally helpful, though there is less supporting evidence from existing research. MRS is the area in which most current novel research is focused.