The frequency of remission and low disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and their ability to identify people with low disability and normal quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommends targeting remission, with low disease activity (LDA) being an alternative goal. When deciding to target remission or LDA, important considerations are the likelihood of attaining them, and their impacts on function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We have addressed this by studying: (a) the frequency of remission and LDA/remission; (b) DAS28-ESR trends after remission; (c) ability of remission vs. LDA to identify patients with normal function (HAQ ≤ 0.5) and HRQoL (EQ-5D ≥ the normal population). METHODS: We studied 571 patients in two clinical trials, and 1693 patients in a 10-year routine care cohort. We assessed the frequency and sustainability of remission and LDA/remission, variability in DAS28-ESR after remission, and sensitivity/specificity of remission and LDA/remission at identifying patients with low disability levels and normal HRQoL using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Point remission and remission/LDA were common (achieved by 35-58% and 49-74% of patients, respectively), but were rarely sustained (sustained remission and remission/LDA achieved by 5-9% and 9-16% of patients, respectively). Following attaining remission, DAS28-ESR levels varied substantially. Despite this, of those patients attaining point remission, the majority (53-61%) were in remission at study end-points. Whilst remission was highly specific at identifying patients with low disability (85-91%) it lacked sensitivity (51-57%); similar findings were seen for normal HRQoL (specificity 78-86%; sensitivity 52-59%). The optimal DAS28-cut-off to identify individuals with low disability and normal HRQoL was around the LDA threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support both the treat-to-target goals. Attaining remission is highly specific for attaining low disability and normal HRQoL, although many patients with more active disease also have good function and HRQoL. Attaining a DAS28-ESR ≤ 3.2 has a better balance of specificity and sensitivity for attaining these outcomes, with the benefit of being more readily achievable. Although sustaining these targets over time is rare, even attaining them on a one-off basis leads to better function and HRQoL outcomes for patients.

A structured course teaching junior doctors invasive medical procedures results in sustained improvements in self-reported confidence.

Pressure on working hours has led to a decrease in opportunities for training in invasive medical procedures for junior doctors. The effect of a structured course on immediate and medium-term changes in self-reported confidence was investigated. A one-day model-based practical course was run on two separate occasions teaching central venous line placement, lumbar puncture, Seldinger-technique chest drain insertion and knee joint aspiration. Attendees were asked to indicate their confidence in each procedure on a 10-point Likert scale before, immediately after and three months after the course. Significant improvements in self-reported confidence were seen for all procedures which were sustained at three months. Feedback was universally positive. Practical preclinical training may be a useful adjunct to patient-based training in invasive procedures. The course was particularly popular with foundation year trainees: ideally this training should be available before trainees' first exposure in the clinical setting.

Therapeutic benefit of blocking interleukin-6 activity with an anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of MRA, a recombinant human anti-interleukin-6 (anti-IL-6) receptor monoclonal antibody of the IgG1 subclass that inhibits the function of IL-6, in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial was conducted in 45 patients with active RA, as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) revised criteria. Patients were sequentially allocated to receive a single intravenous dose of either 0.1, 1, 5, or 10 mg/kg of MRA or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was meeting the ACR 20% response criteria at week 2 after treatment. RESULTS: Demographic features were similar between treatment groups. At week 2, a significant treatment difference was observed between the 5 mg/kg of MRA and placebo, with 5 patients (55.6%) in the MRA cohort and none in the placebo cohort achieving ACR 20% improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in the ACR 20% response between the other 3 MRA cohorts and placebo at week 2. The mean disease activity score at week 2 in those who received 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg of MRA was 4.8 and 4.7 (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001 by analysis of variance), respectively. These mean scores were statistically significantly lower than those in the 0.1- and 1-mg/kg MRA and the placebo cohorts (6.4, 6.2, and 7.0, respectively). The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein values fell significantly in the 5- and 10-mg/kg MRA cohorts and normalized 2 weeks after treatment. Seventeen patients (5, 4, 6, 2, and 0 patients in the placebo, 0.1-, 1-, 5-, and 10-mg/kg MRA cohorts, respectively) required corticosteroid or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment because of active disease before study end. They were regarded as nonresponders from the time they received these treatments. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event, occurring in 8% of patients. Seven patients (15.6%) reported a severe adverse event (3, 1, 2, and 2 patients in the placebo, 0.1-, 1-, and 10-mg/kg MRA cohorts). There were no serious adverse events that were thought to be related to the study drug. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial showing that inhibition of IL-6 significantly improved the signs and symptoms of RA and normalized the acute-phase reactants. Further research with multiple dosing is necessary to define the most appropriate therapeutic regimen of MRA in RA.

Combination therapy with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.

There is increasing interest in using combinations of two or more disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The use of such combinations is increasing in routine clinical practice. We have identified 18 well-conducted, randomised controlled trials of the use of combinations of disease modifying drugs, and a number of open studies that provide helpful supportive information. The 18 trials involved 2221 patients. Two trials reported strongly positive results, six reported moderately positive results and ten gave largely negative results. The combination of methotrexate, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine appears to be effective with an acceptable level of adverse effects. There is also evidence that the combination of methotrexate and cyclosporin is advantageous. With both combinations, there appears to be further advantages from using corticosteroids in addition to the combination, although the evidence for this is incomplete. The use of other combinations is of less value, and in particular combinations involving parenteral gold, penicillamine and azathioprine are best avoided. Finally, there is growing evidence from randomised trials that the combination of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy with methotrexate is effective and well tolerated. We have identified four randomised controlled trials of the use of combinations of anti-TNF with methotrexate that all reported results favouring this combination. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of other combinations involving immunotherapies at the present time.

Quality of life measures: use and abuse.

Health status and quality of life measures are widely used in the clinical assessment of rheumatoid and other forms of arthritis. A range of measures is available, mainly as self-administered instruments. Most of these are reliable, valid and sensitive to change. They can be used to assess clinical status, evaluate effectiveness in randomized trials, define outcome and help to plan for health-care needs for people with arthritis. The instruments form a continuum with assessments of disease activity and functional disability. Some instruments are specifically designed for use in rheumatoid arthritis, other instruments are generic and can be used across a range of conditions including arthritis, and some generic instruments can be specifically scored to reflect the problems most prominent in arthritis. There are trade-offs between simplicity and sensitivity and between using familiar and unusual instruments. Against this background, the most widely used disease-specific measure remains the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), and the most commonly employed generic measure is the SF-36. Evidence currently suggests focusing on these well-known and widely used measures. In both cases, the pain score is the predominant clinical assessment associated with poor health status measured using either instrument. HAQ scores also reflect unchanging aspects of patients' overall status, such as their degree of deprivation. It is sensible for all future clinical trials to include one disease-specific and one generic measure of health status.