Spinal Lesions in Axial Psoriatic Disease: How Should They Be Identified and Quantified by Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

Proper assessment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) requires assessment of all disease domains, including axial disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the method of choice for evaluating axial involvement in PsA. When assessing patients with PsA for spinal involvement, it is important to assess both vertebral body lesions and posterolateral lesions, such as inflammation in facet joints and costovertebral joints, and enthesitis at spinous and transverse processes. The Canada-Denmark (CanDen) assessment system for spine MRIs is the preferred method for detailed evaluation of inflammation and structural damage at various anatomical locations in the spine, and it is reproducible and sensitive to change. The Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) has recently published MRI definitions of inflammatory and structural lesions in the spine, incorporating the CanDen definitions of spinal lesions on MRI. Applying the ASAS definitions and the CanDen assessment system in clinical practice and trials is recommended. Ongoing research/studies, not least the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis (AXIS) study, may provide a data-driven definition of axial involvement in PsA. Ongoing research is expected to further improve and validate assessment tools for axial PsA and to provide a much-needed data-driven consensus-based definition of axial involvement in PsA.

Effect of Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Conventional Treat-to-Target Strategies on Disease Activity Remission and Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Whether using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves disease activity and slows joint damage progression is unknown. Objective: To determine whether an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy vs a conventional clinical treat-to-target strategy improves outcomes in patients with RA in clinical remission. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two-year, randomized, multicenter trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Denmark. Two hundred patients with RA in clinical remission (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to an MRI-guided vs a conventional treat-to-target strategy. In the MRI-guided group, the treatment goal was absence of MRI bone marrow edema combined with clinical remission, defined as DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less and no swollen joints. In the conventional group, the treatment goal was clinical remission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary outcomes were proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and with no radiographic progression (no increase in total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) at 24 months. Significance testing for the primary outcome was based on 1-sided testing. Secondary outcomes were clinical and MRI measures of disease activity, physical function, and quality of life. Results: Of 200 patients randomized (133 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 61.6 [10.5] years; median baseline DAS28-CRP, 1.9 [interquartile range, 1.7-2.2]; van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, 18.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-42.5]), 76 patients (76%) in the MRI-guided group and 95 (95%) in the conventional group completed the study. Of these, 64 (85%) vs 83 (88%), respectively, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, -4.8% [1-sided 95% CI, -13.6% to + ∞; 1-sided P = .19]) and 49 (66%) vs 58 (62%), respectively, reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7% [1-sided 95% CI, -7.0% to + ∞; 1-sided P = .25). Of 10 key secondary end points, 8 were null and 2 showed statistically significant benefit for the MRI treat-to-target group. Seventeen patients (17%) in the MRI-guided treat-to-target group and 6 patients (6%) in the conventional treat-to-target group experienced serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with RA in clinical remission, an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy did not result in improved disease activity remission rates or reduce radiographic progression. These findings do not support the use of an MRI-guided strategy for treating patients with RA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01656278.

Impact of a magnetic resonance imaging-guided treat-to-target strategy on disease activity and progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (the IMAGINE-RA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive joint disease, which frequently leads to irreversible joint deformity and severe functional impairment. Although patients are treated according to existing guidelines and reach clinical remission, erosive progression still occurs. This demonstrates that additional methods for prognostication and monitoring of the disease activity are needed. Bone marrow edema (BME) detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has proved to be an independent predictor of subsequent radiographic progression. Guiding the treatment based on the presence/absence of BME may therefore be clinically beneficial. We present the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) aiming to evaluate whether an MRI-guided treatment strategy compared to a conventional treatment strategy in anti-CCP-positive erosive RA is better to prevent progression of erosive joint damage and increase the remission rate in patients with low disease activity or clinical remission. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, 2-year RCT with a parallel group design. Two hundred anti-CCP-positive, erosive RA patients characterized by low disease activity or remission, no clinically swollen joints and treatment with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) will be included. Patients will be randomized to either a treatment strategy based on conventional laboratory and clinical examinations (control group) or a treatment strategy based on conventional laboratory and clinical examinations as well as MRI (intervention group). Treatment is intensified according to a predefined treatment algorithm in case of inflammation defined as a disease activity score (DAS28) >3.2 and at least one clinically swollen joint (control and intervention groups) and/or MRI-detected BME (intervention group only). The primary outcome measures are DAS28 remission (DAS28 < 2.6) and radiographic progression (Sharp/vdHeijde score). DISCUSSION: The perspectives, strengths and weaknesses of this study are discussed. This study has been approved by The Regional Scientific Ethical Committees for Southern Denmark, S-20110109. Dissemination will occur through presentations and publication in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01656278 (5 July 2012).