The prevalence of clinical remission in RA patients treated with anti-TNF: results from the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of clinical remission and minimal disease activity according to the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) remission, DAS-28 <2.6 and minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria, and to compare the extent of residual disease activity with disability in RA patients after 6 months of treatment with anti-TNF. METHODS: In the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) biologic registry the prevalence of DAS-28 <2.6, MDA and ACR/EULAR remission criteria was assessed. Residual disease activity during MDA or remission was assessed as the percentage of patients with swollen and tender joints, elevated acute-phase reactants and general health on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Disability was evaluated with the HAQ score. RESULTS: Prevalence of DAS-28 <2.6 was 27%, prevalence of MDA was 34% and ACR/EULAR remission was reached by 6% of patients. Residual disease activity was present mostly in the most lenient criteria and occurred most frequently on the level of swollen joint count and VAS score: at least one swollen joint in DAS-28 <2.6, MDA and ACR/EULAR remission was present in, respectively, 51, 54 and 34% of the patients. VAS >1 occurred in, respectively, 67, 69 and 0% of the patients. Modification of the cut-point of the patient-reported outcome increased the prevalence of ACR/EULAR remission, but also the level of disability. CONCLUSION: MDA and DAS-28 <2.6 are reachable treatment targets in RA with anti-TNF, although residual disease activity might still be present. In turn, ACR/EULAR remission criteria leave little residual disease activity, but might be too stringent for use in daily clinical practice due to the strict cut-point in the patient-reported outcome.

A simplified baseline prediction model for joint damage progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a step toward personalized medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of an extended model and a simplified prognostic model for joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on 3 baseline risk factors: anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP), erosions, and acute-phase reaction. METHODS: Data were used from the Nijmegen early RA cohort. An extended model and a simplified baseline prediction model were developed to predict joint damage progression between 0 and 3 years. Joint damage progression was assessed using the Ratingen score. In the extended model, prediction factors were positivity for anti-CCP and/or rheumatoid factor, the level of erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and the quantity of erosions. The prediction score was calculated as the sum of the regression coefficients. In the simplified model, the prediction factors were dichotomized and the number of risk factors was counted. Performances of both models were compared using discrimination and calibration. The models were internally validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: The extended model resulted in a prediction score between 0 and 5.6 with an area under the receiver-operation characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.81). The simplified model resulted in a prediction score between 0 and 3. This model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.75 (95% CI 0.70-0.80). In internal validation, the 2 models showed reasonably well the agreement between observed and predicted probabilities for joint damage progression (Hosmer-Lemeshow test p > 0.05 and calibration slope near 1.0). CONCLUSION: A simple prediction model for joint damage progression in early RA, by only counting the number of risk factors, has adequate performance. This facilitates the translation of the theoretical prognostic models to daily clinical practice.

Personalizing treatment targets in rheumatoid arthritis by using a simple prediction model.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a personalized treatment target approach in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on baseline risk factors for joint damage progression in combination with disease activity over time. METHODS: Data were used from the Nijmegen early RA cohort. Presence or absence of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP), high erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and erosions were translated into 4 risk profiles: 0, 1, 2, and 3. Joint damage progression was assessed with the Ratingen score, and disease activity with the original Disease Activity Score (DAS) over 3 years. The probability for joint damage progression was calculated for each risk profile and each DAS category using logistic regression models. The probabilities were translated into personalized disease activity treatment targets. RESULTS: More risk factors at baseline as well as a higher DAS level resulted in a higher probability for joint damage progression in a dose-dependent way. Low DAS corresponded with a probability of 0.0, 0.08, 0.20, and 0.58 in patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk factors, respectively. Moderate DAS corresponded with a probability of 0.06 in patients with 0 risk factors and 0.35 with 1 risk factor. High DAS resulted in a probability of 0.50 with no risk factors present at baseline. CONCLUSION: Presence of anti-CCP, acute-phase response, and erosions at baseline can be used to set individual treatment targets in RA. In patients without these risk factors, a moderate DAS as a target is sufficient, while for patients with all 3 risk factors, a low DAS is not strict enough to limit the risk for joint damage.

Should we redefine treatment targets in rheumatoid arthritis? Low disease activity is sufficiently strict for patients who are anticitrullinated protein antibody-negative.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical remission currently is the treatment target for all patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). At the same level of inflammation, the prognosis regarding joint damage is believed to be different for anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-negative and ACPA-positive patients. Our objective was to show the difference in prognosis at similar disease activity levels, and to illustrate how this could be translated to differentiation of treatment targets. METHODS: Data were used from the Nijmegen Early RA Cohort. The relation between the time-averaged disease activity level (by Disease Activity Score; DAS) and joint damage progression over 3 years was analyzed, separately for ACPA-negative and ACPA-positive patients. Joint damage was assessed as change in Ratingen score, and dichotomized as occurrence of erosions in joints that were unaffected at baseline. Linear and logistic multivariable regression models were used. RESULTS: The regression coefficient of DAS on change in Ratingen score was 3.9 (p < 0.001) for ACPA-negative and 4.7 (p < 0.001) for ACPA-positive patients, showing less joint damage progression at the same disease activity level in ACPA-negative patients. This difference became greater with increasing disease activity. The probability for erosions in joints unaffected at baseline was 0.35 in ACPA-negative patients when time-averaged DAS was < 2.4 versus 0.80 in ACPA-positive patients. CONCLUSION: At the same level of inflammation, ACPA-negative patients have less joint damage and lower probability for damage in newly affected joints than ACPA-positive patients. Low disease activity might be a sufficiently strict treatment target for ACPA-negative patients to prevent progression of joint damage.