Favourable effect of a 'second hit' after 13 weeks in early RA non-responders: the Amsterdam COBRA treat-to-target randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of treat-to-target combination therapy with intensification at 13 weeks in early RA. METHODS: Early RA patients were classified as being at high or low risk of worsening RA based on disease activity and prognostic factors. High-risk patients received COBRA-light (prednisolone 30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day, MTX increasing to 25 mg/week), and low-risk patients received MTX monotherapy increasing to 25 mg/week. The primary outcome (target) was DAS44 < 1.6 or EULAR good response at 26 weeks. At 13 weeks, non-responders were randomized to (open-label) intensification [high-risk patients: prednisolone 60 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day, addition of SSZ (2 g/day) and HCQ (400 mg/day); low-risk patients: prednisolone 30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day] or continuation. RESULTS: In the high-risk group (n = 150), 110 patients (73%) reached the target at 13 weeks, and 9 dropped out. Non-responders were randomized to intensification (n = 15) or continuation (n = 16), and after 26 weeks, 12 (80%) vs 7 (44%) of these, respectively, reached the target [difference: 36%, (95% CI 2%, 71%); P = 0.04]. In the low-risk group (n = 40), 17 (43%) reached the target. Non-responders were randomized to intensification (n = 8) or continuation (n = 7); 4 vs 3, respectively, reached the target.Adverse event rates were higher in the high-risk group, and higher in the intensification subgroup of that group. Serious adverse events were rare. Protocol violations were frequent and mostly led to mitigation of actual treatment intensification. CONCLUSION: Initial combination therapy was very successful in high-risk RA, and early intensification was beneficial in patients not reaching the strict target. The low-risk group was too small for drawing conclusions. In routine practice, adherence to early intensification based on strict targets is difficult. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), NL4393, https://www.trialregister.nl/.

Initial high-dose prednisolone combination therapy using COBRA and COBRA-light in early rheumatoid arthritis.

Treatment with initial high-dose prednisolone and a combination of methotrexate (MTX) and sulfasalazine (SSZ) according to the COBRA regimen (Dutch acronym for combinatietherapie bij reumatoide artritis, 'combination therapy for rheumatoid arthritis'), has repeatedly been demonstrated to be very effective in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). COBRA combination therapy is superior to initial monotherapy of SSZ and MTX, is also associated with a good long-term outcome, is as safe as other treatment regimes, and performs as well as the combination of high-dose MTX and the tumor necrosis factor antagonist infliximab. A pilot study with an intensified version of the COBRA combination therapy showed that strict monitoring and aggressive treatment intensification based on the Disease Activity Score can result in a remission rate of 90% in patients with active early RA. Also, the first results indicate that an attenuated variation on COBRA combination therapy, called 'COBRA-light', is effective in decreasing disease activity and is generally well tolerated. Based on these results, we conclude that initial high-dose prednisolone in combination with MTX and SSZ could or should be the first choice in early active RA since it is effective and safe, and the cost price of the drugs is low.

Pain, sleep and emotional well-being explain the lack of agreement between physician- and patient-perceived remission in early rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical response and remission are defined in multiple ways and measured with different instruments, resulting in substantial variation of the proportion of patients classified as being in remission. Therefore, the agreement between patient-perceived, physician-perceived remission and clinical response and remission definitions was determined in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. And secondly, differences in clinical and patient-reported outcomes, in patients in physician-perceived remission, between patients in and not in self-perceived remission were assessed. METHODS: In 84 early RA patients, who received methotrexate and glucocorticoids, DAS44, ACR/EULAR Boolean-based remission, EULAR good and ACR70 response were determined after 12 weeks. Agreement between patient-perceived (phrased: "Would you say that, at this moment, your disease activity is as good as gone?"), physician-perceived remission (based on a visual analogue scale for global disease severity) and clinical response and remission definitions were calculated with the percentage of agreement and with kappa values (which corrects for change). In patients in physician-perceived remission, improvement in clinical and patient-reported outcomes (RAID) were compared between patients in and not in self-perceived remission. RESULTS: Agreement between the assessed outcome measures differed enormously. The agreement between physician-perceived and patient-perceived remission was 64% (kappa 0.25, p < 0.01). Physician-perceived remission had the best agreement with EULAR good response (79%), and patient-perceived remission with EULAR good and ACR70 response (both 69%). Patients not in self-perceived remission improved less on RAID components, especially on pain, sleep and emotional well-being. CONCLUSION: One-third of the early RA patients disagreed with the physician on being in remission. Those patients had less improvement on RAID components, especially on pain, sleep and emotional well-being. Together with the variability in clinical response and remission definitions, these results highlight the need to increase patient involvement in their own health care decisions.

Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called "JAK/STAT inhibitors") have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA. METHODS: The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258 . Registered on 20 October 2015.

Validating Rheumatoid Arthritis Remission Using the Patients' Perspective: Results from a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2016.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group on the patients' perspective on remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been working on this topic since 2010. At OMERACT 2016, progress and preliminary data on validity of measurement instruments for pain, fatigue, and independence in remission in RA were presented, and future directions were explored. METHODS: A special interest group was organized, in which the current data on the patients' perspective on remission were presented. The ongoing study that aimed to validate measurement instruments for pain, fatigue, and independence in a state of low disease activity or remission was presented, and preliminary data on construct validity and discriminative capacity were evaluated cross-sectionally. RESULTS: At OMERACT 2016, the progress of the working group and preliminary data from 142 of the anticipated 300 patients were presented. Selected instruments significantly correlated with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (construct validity) and all instruments except 1 discriminated between patients in and patients not in remission. The subsequent discussion mainly focused around 3 points: (1) the formulation of patient perceived remission, (2) the duration of remission, and (3) the measurement of the domain independence. An informal vote indicated a slight preference for working toward modifying the current remission criteria by adding patient-reported outcomes (PRO), or by substituting the patient's global assessment with 1 or more PRO. CONCLUSION: More evidence on measuring patients' perspective on remission in RA is needed before an informed decision can be made regarding development or modification of remission definitions.

Glucocorticoid safety for treating rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Glucocorticoids (GCs) are often used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other inflammatory diseases. Besides strong favorable effects on disease activity, GCs can cause (serious) side effects as well. AREAS COVERED: Side effects of GCs that are ranked as most important by rheumatologists as well as by patients are bone loss and fractures, cardiovascular events, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. In evaluating these side effects, confounding by indication is a disturbing factor: not only the use of GCs can increase the risk of several side effects, but so can the activity of the underlying disease, which in turn is related to the amount of GCs that is prescribed to the patient. EXPERT OPINION: Generally, side effects predominantly occur in patients with a high disease activity and when used in high doses and for a long period of time. For these patients, caution and monitoring are most warranted. However, monitoring is not only recommended in patients with a high disease activity, and high-dose or long-term use of GCs, but in all GC users, since side effects may also occur in patients treated with low-dose GCs. When detecting possible negative effects in time, they might be managed and serious damage due to side effects might hopefully be prevented.