RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to drug-free remission is an attractive treatment goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, although long-term effects of tapering and withdrawal remain unclear. We compared 3-year risks of flare between three conventional synthetic DMARD treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-80 years with rheumatoid arthritis who had been in sustained remission for at least 1 year on stable conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. Patients from ten hospitals in Norway were randomly assigned (2:1:1) with centre stratification to receive stable conventional synthetic DMARDs, half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs for 1 year followed by withdrawal of all conventional synthetic DMARDs. The primary endpoint of this part of the study was disease flare over 3 years, analysed as flare-free survival and risk difference in the per-protocol population with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01881308) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2013, and June 18, 2018, 160 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=80), half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=42), or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs tapering to withdrawal (n=38). Four patients did not receive the intervention and 156 patients received the allocated treatment strategy. One patient was excluded due to major protocol violation and 155 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis. 104 (67%) of 156 patients were women and 52 (33%) were men. 139 patients completed 3-years follow-up without major protocol violation; 68 (87%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (88%) of 41 patients in the half-dose group and 35 (95%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. During the 3-year study period, 80% (95% CI 69-88%) were flare-free in the stable-dose group, compared with 57% (41-71%) in the half-dose group and 38% (22-53%) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. Compared with stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, the risk difference of flare was 23% (95% CI 6-41%, p=0·010) in the half-dose group and 40% (22-58%, p<0·0001) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group, non-inferiority was therefore not shown. Adverse events were reported in 65 (83%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (90%) of 40 patients in the half-dose group, and 36 (97%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. One death occurred in the stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARD group (sudden death considered unlikely related to the study medication). INTERPRETATION: Two conventional synthetic DMARD tapering strategies were associated with significantly lower rates of flare-free survival compared with stable conventional synthetic DMARD treatment, and the data do not support non-inferiority. However, drug-free remission was achiveable for a significant subgroup of patients. This trial provides information on risk and benefits of different treatment strategies important for shared decision making. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos , Artritis Reumatoide , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antirreumáticos/administración & dosificación , Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Reducción Gradual de Medicamentos , Noruega/epidemiología , Inducción de Remisión , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos , Artritis Reumatoide , Humanos , Antirreumáticos/efectos adversos , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Artritis Reumatoide/inducido químicamente , Brote de los Síntomas , Resultado del Tratamiento , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral/uso terapéutico , Factor de Necrosis Tumoral alfaRESUMEN
Importance: Sustained remission has become an achievable goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but how to best treat patients in clinical remission remains unclear. Objective: To assess the effect of tapering of csDMARDs, compared with continuing csDMARDs without tapering, on the risk of flares in patients with RA in sustained remission. Design, Setting, and Participants: ARCTIC REWIND was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label noninferiority study conducted in 10 Norwegian hospital-based rheumatology practices. A total of 160 patients with RA in remission for 12 months who were receiving stable csDMARD therapy were enrolled between June 2013 and June 2018, and the final visit occurred in June 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to half-dose csDMARDs (n = 80) or stable-dose csDMARDs (n = 80). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a disease flare between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) greater than 1.6 (threshold for RA remission), an increase in DAS score of 0.6 units or more, and at least 2 swollen joints. A disease flare could also be recorded if both the patient and investigator agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. A risk difference of 20% was defined as the noninferiority margin. Results: Of 160 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [11.9] years; 66% female), 156 received the allocated therapy, of which 155 without any major protocol violations were included in the primary analysis population (77 receiving half-dose and 78 receiving stable-dose csDMARDs). Flare occurred in 19 patients (25%) in the half-dose csDMARD group compared with 5 (6%) in the stable-dose csDMARD group (risk difference, 18% [95% CI, 7%-29%]). Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (44%) in the half-dose group and 42 (54%) in the stable-dose group, none leading to study discontinuation. No deaths occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with RA in remission taking csDMARD therapy, treatment with half-dose vs stable-dose csDMARDs did not demonstrate noninferiority for the percentage of patients with disease flares over 12 months, and there were significantly fewer flares in the stable-dose group. These findings do not support treatment with half-dose therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01881308.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos/administración & dosificación , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Metotrexato/administración & dosificación , Brote de los Síntomas , Adulto , Anciano , Antirreumáticos/efectos adversos , Artritis Reumatoide/diagnóstico por imagen , Artritis Reumatoide/patología , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/administración & dosificación , Leflunamida/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Metotrexato/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Radiografía , Sulfasalazina/administración & dosificación , UltrasonografíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sarcoidosis is a multi-system inflammatory disorder resulting in the formation of non-caseating granulomas in various parts of the body. Cardiac involvement is associated with worse prognosis, probably due to the destructive effects the granulomas can have on the electrical conduction system. The diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis can be challenging due to the limited accuracy of various clinical criteria. CASE PRESENTATION: A woman in her fifties developed symptoms in the form of dry cough and uncharacteristic chest pain. Thorough assessment was initiated, but the true cause remained undiagnosed for several years. The patient suffered from recurrent arrythmias and eventually a weakened ventricular function and cardiac failure. A multidisciplinary approach revealed that the patient was suffering from cardiac sarcoidosis. INTERPRETATION: Cardiac sarcoidosis may initially present with mild symptoms, but left bundle branch block, total AV-block and supraventricular tachycardias, as well as weakened ventricular function, should raise suspicion of the condition. Magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography may be of help during clinical assessment, and positron emission tomography/computed tomography and biopsy can confirm the condition.
Asunto(s)
Cardiomiopatías , Sarcoidosis , Arritmias Cardíacas , Bloqueo de Rama/diagnóstico , Ecocardiografía , Electrocardiografía , Femenino , Humanos , Sarcoidosis/complicaciones , Sarcoidosis/diagnósticoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy. DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial. SETTING: Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015. PARTICIPANTS: 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set. RESULTS: 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval -7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.
Asunto(s)
Artritis Reumatoide/diagnóstico por imagen , Ultrasonografía , Actividades Cotidianas , Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Humanos , Articulaciones/diagnóstico por imagen , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Calidad de Vida , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ultrasonografía/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a responsive and feasible ultrasound inflammation score for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We used data from cohorts of early RA (development) and established RA starting/switching biologic therapy (validation). 4 tendons and 36 joints were examined by a grey scale (GSUS) and power Doppler semiquantitative ultrasound (PDUS) scoring system (full score). Ultrasound score components were selected based on factor analyses of 3-month change in the development cohort. Responsiveness was assessed by standardised response means (SRMs). We assessed the proportion of information retained from the full score by linear regression. RESULTS: 118 patients with early and 212 patients with established RA were included. The final ultrasound score included 8 joints (metacarpophalangeal 1-2-3, proximal interphalangeal 2-3, radiocarpal, metatarsophalangeal 2-3) and 1 tendon (extensor carpi ulnaris) examined bilaterally. The 6-month SRMs for the final score were -1.24 (95% CI -1.47 to -1.02) for GSUS, and -1.09 (-1.25 to -0.92) for PDUS in early RA, with 87% of total information retained for GSUS and 90% for PDUS. The new score performed somewhat better than formerly proposed scores in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The Ultrasound in Rheumatoid Arthritis 9 joint/tendon score (USRA9) inflammation score showed good responsiveness, retained most of the information from the original full score and overall performed better than previous scores in a validation cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01205854, ACTRN12610000284066; Post-results.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate candidate sets of joints and tendons for assessment of ultrasound (US) joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were included in one of two cohorts from 2010 to June 2013: disease-modifying antirheumatic drug naïve early RA or established RA starting/switching biologics. An extensive US examination was performed by experienced sonographers using a validated grey-scale (GSUS) and power Doppler (PDUS) semiquantitative scoring system with scores 0-3 for both GSUS and PDUS in 36 joints and four tendons. We performed factor analysis in the early RA US data and selected candidate joint/tendon sets based on these results. The proportion of information in the total US scores retained in these candidate sets was assessed by R(2) from linear regression analysis. Finally, the candidate sets and previously proposed joint scores were tested in the established RA cohort, and we also evaluated the sensitivity to change with standardised response means. RESULTS: 227 patients with early RA and 212 patients with established RA were included. We identified two candidate sets of joints/tendons: candidate set A consisted of seven joints/two tendons (meatacarpophalangeal 1 (MCP1), MCP2, proximal interphalangeal 3, radiocarpal, elbow, metatarsophalangeal 1 (MTP1), MTP2, tibialis posterior tendon, extensor carpi ulnaris tendon) and set B of nine joints/two tendons (MCP5 and MTP5 added to set A). Unilateral reduced scores retained 78%-85% of the information in total score, while bilateral reduced scores retained 89%-93%, and both sets performed better than previously proposed reduced joint scores, and similar or slightly better regarding sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced GSUS and PDUS scores retained most of the information from the total score and performed well in a validation cohort of established RA. TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER: NCT01205854, ACTRN12610000284066.