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.

Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Axial Spondyloarthritis: Reduction of Sacroiliac, Spinal, and Entheseal Inflammation in a Placebo-controlled Trial of Adalimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether adalimumab (ADA) reduces whole-body (WB-) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indices for inflammation in the entheses, peripheral joints, sacroiliac joints, spine, and the entire body in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: An investigator-initiated, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded 48-week followup trial included 49 patients with axSpA, who had Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 4.0 despite treatment with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and a clinical indication for tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment. Patients were randomized to subcutaneous ADA 40 mg or placebo every other week for 6 weeks; thereafter, all patients received ADA. Conventional MRI and WBMRI were performed at weeks 0, 6, 24, and 48. The primary WBMRI endpoint was the proportion of patients with an improvement in WBMRI total inflammation index above the smallest detectable change (SDC) at Week 6. RESULTS: The primary WBMRI endpoint (improvement of SDC > 2.3) was met in 11 (44%) patients in the ADA group and 3 (13%) patients in the placebo group (p = 0.025, Fisher's exact test). The primary conventional MRI endpoint, the minimally important change in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Spine MRI Inflammation Index at Week 6, was achieved by 9 (36%) patients in the ADA group and 4 (17%) patients in the placebo group (p = 0.20). The primary clinical endpoint, BASDAI reduction > 50% or 2.0 at Week 24, was attained by 32 (65%) patients. CONCLUSION: ADA provided significant reductions in WBMRI indices of peripheral, axial, and whole-body inflammation in patients with axSpA. WBMRI is promising for objective assessment and monitoring of peripheral and axial disease activity in future clinical trials.

Development and Validation of MRI Sacroiliac Joint Scoring Methods for the Semiaxial Scan Plane Corresponding to the Berlin and SPARCC MRI Scoring Methods, and of a New Global MRI Sacroiliac Joint Method.

OBJECTIVE: To develop semiaxial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scoring methods for assessment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) bone marrow edema (BME) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis, and to compare the reliability with equivalent semicoronal scoring methods. METHODS: Two semiaxial SIJ MRI scoring methods were developed based on the principles of the semicoronal Berlin and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) methods. A global quadrant-based method was also developed. Baseline and 12-week MRI of the SIJ from 51 patients participating in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab 40 mg every other week versus placebo were scored by the semiaxial and the corresponding semicoronal methods. Results were compared by linear regression analysis. The reproducibility and sensitivity were evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and smallest detectable change [SDC, absolute values and percentage of the highest observed score (SDC-HOS)]. RESULTS: Interreader and intrareader ICC were moderate to very high for semiaxial scoring methods (baseline 0.83-0.88 and 0.85-0.97; change 0.33-0.78), while high to very high for semicoronal scoring methods (baseline 0.90-0.92 and 0.93-0.97; change 0.77-0.89). Association between semiaxial and semicoronal scores were high for both the Berlin and SPARCC method (baseline: R2 = 0.93 and 0.88; change: R2 = 0.82 and 0.87, respectively), while lower for the global method (baseline: R2 = 0.79; change: R2 = 0.54). The SDC-HOS were 9.8-18.6% and 5.9-10.7% for the semiaxial and semicoronal methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Detection of SIJ BME in the semiaxial scan plane is feasible and reproducible. However, a slightly lower reliability of all 3 semiaxial methods supports the general practice of using the coronal scan-plane in therapeutic studies.

A prospective study comparing whole-body skeletal X-ray survey with 18F-FDG-PET/CT, 18F-NaF-PET/CT and whole-body MRI in the detection of bone lesions in multiple myeloma patients.

BACKGROUND: For decades, the most widely used imaging technique for myeloma bone lesions has been a whole-body skeletal X-ray survey (WBXR), but newer promising imaging techniques are evolving. PURPOSE: To compare WBXR with the advanced imaging techniques 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), 18F-sodium fluoride (NaF) PET/CT and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in the detection of myeloma bone lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were prospectively enrolled. In addition to WBXR, all patients underwent FDG-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, and WB-MRI. Experienced specialists performed blinded readings based on predefined anatomical regions and diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: In a region-based analysis, a two-sided ANOVA test showed that the extent of detected skeletal disease depends on the scanning technique (P < 0.0001). Tukey's multiple comparison test revealed that WB-MRI on average detects significantly more affected regions than WBXR (P < 0.005), FDG-PET/CT (P < 0.0001), and NaF-PET/CT (P < 0.05). In a patient-based analysis, a Cochran's Q test showed that there are no significant differences in the proportion of patients with bone disease detected by the different scanning techniques (P = 0.23). Determination of intrareader variability resulted in Kappa coefficients corresponding to moderate (FDG-PET/CT) and substantial agreement (WB-MRI, WBXR, NaF-PET/CT). CONCLUSION: WB-MRI detects on average significantly more body regions indicative of myeloma bone disease compared to WBXR, FDG-PET/CT, and NaF-PET/CT. The lack of significance in the patient-based analysis is most likely due to the small number of study participants.

Course of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Detected Inflammation and Structural Lesions in the Sacroiliac Joints of Patients in the Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Danish Multicenter Study of Adalimumab in Spondyloarthritis, as Assessed by the Berlin and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Methods.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate changes in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-assessed inflammation and structural lesions in the sacroiliac (SI) joints during treatment with adalimumab versus placebo. METHODS: In a 48-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 52 patients with spondyloarthritis were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of either adalimumab 40 mg (n = 25) or placebo (n = 27) every other week for 12 weeks. Patients in the adalimumab group continued to receive and patients in the placebo group were switched to adalimumab 40 mg every other week for an additional 12 weeks. MRI of the SI joints was performed at weeks 0, 12, 24, and 48, and the images were assessed independently in a blinded manner using the modified Berlin and the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scores for inflammation and structural lesions of the SI joints. RESULTS: At baseline, 56% of the adalimumab group and ∼72% of the placebo group had an MRI-assessed inflammation score of ≥1. Among the patients with inflammation at baseline, the mean percent reductions in MRI scores for inflammation from week 0 to 12 were greater in the adalimumab group compared with the placebo group (Berlin method, -62% versus -5%; SPARCC method, -58% versus -12% [both P < 0.04]). Furthermore, the mean SPARCC erosion score decreased (-0.6) and the SPARCC backfill score increased (+0.8) in the adalimumab group from week 0 to week 12. From week 12 to week 24, larger absolute reductions in the Berlin/SPARCC inflammation scores and the SPARCC erosion score and larger increases in the Berlin/SPARCC fatty lesion scores were seen in the placebo group compared with the adalimumab group. In univariate regression analyses (analysis of covariance) and multivariate stepwise regression analyses, treatment with adalimumab was independently associated with regression of the SPARCC erosion score from week 0 to 12 but not with changes in the other types of MRI lesions. CONCLUSION: Significant changes in the Berlin and SPARCC MRI-assessed inflammation scores and in the SPARCC MRI-assessed erosion scores occurred within 12 weeks after initiation of adalimumab. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment was associated with resolution of erosions and the development of backfill.