Disease activity-guided dose optimisation including discontinuation of TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis is effective for up to 10 years: an observational follow-up of the DRESS study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate safety and effectiveness of disease activity-guided dose optimisation of TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis over 10 years. METHODS: Observational long-term extension of a randomised study of participants who completed the 3-year extension of the DRESS-study. After the randomised phase (month 0-18), disease activity-guided dose optimisation was allowed for all. Main outcomes were mean time-weighted DAS28-CRP; biological and targeted synthetic anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use per year as proportion of daily defined dose; proportion of patients reaching discontinuation; durability, effectiveness of subsequent dose reduction attempts; and radiographic progression between 3 and 10 years using the Sharp-van der Heijde score. RESULTS: 170 patients were included of whom 127 completed 10-year follow-up. The mean disease activity remained low (DAS28-CRP 2.13, 95% confidence interval 2.10-2.16), whilst the b/tsDMARD dose reduced from 97% at baseline (95%CI 96% to 99%, n = 170)% to56% at year 10 (49% to 63%, n = 127). 119 of 161 participants (74%) with an optimisation attempt reached discontinuation, with a median duration of 7 months (interquartile range 3-33 months), and 25 participants never had to restart their b/tsDMARD (21%, 14% to 29%). The mean dose reduction after dose optimisation was 48% (n = 159) for the first optimisation attempt and 33% for subsequent attempt (n = 86). 48% (41/86) of participants had radiographic progression exceeding the smallest detectable change (5.7 units), and progression was associated with disease activity, not b/tsDMARD use. CONCLUSION: Long-term disease activity-guided dose optimisation of TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis, including discontinuation and multiple tapering attempts, remains safe and effective.

Effect of using the Simple Erosion Narrowing Score or Sharp/van der Heijde score on power of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials to detect differences in radiographic progression.

OBJECTIVES: The Simple Erosion Narrowing Score (SENS) is a simplification of the Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS). Previous studies found SENS and SHS to have very similar measurement properties, but suggest that SENS has a lower discriminative ability that may result in reduced power. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the effect of using SENS rather than SHS on the power to show between-group differences in radiographic progression. METHODS: Using data from two clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (DRESS and BeSt), SENS was derived from the SHS. Criterion validity of the SENS in relation to the SHS was assessed by calculating the Spearman correlation. The power of both scores to show a difference between groups was compared using bootstrapping to generate 10.000 replications of each study. Then, the number of replications with a significant difference in progression (using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline scores) were compared. RESULTS: Correlations between SENS and SHS were all >0.9, indicating high criterion validity of SENS compared with SHS as a reference standard. There was one exception, the DRESS study showed a somewhat lower correlation for the change score at 18 months (0.787). The loss in power of SENS over SHS was limited to at most 19% (BeSt year 5). In addition, the difference in power between SENS and SHS is smaller at higher levels of power. CONCLUSION: SENS appears to be a reasonable alternative to SHS, with only a limited loss of power to show between-group differences in radiographic progression.

The added value of predictive biomarkers in treat-to-target strategies for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a conceptual modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the additional value of a hypothetical biomarker predicting response to treatment for RA regarding efficacy and costs by using a modelling design. METHODS: A Markov model was built comparing a usual care T2T strategy with a biomarker-steered strategy for RA patients starting biologic therapy. Outcome measures include time spent in remission or low disease activity (LDA) and costs. Four additional scenario analyses were performed by varying biomarker or clinical care characteristics: (i) costs of the biomarker; (ii) sensitivity and specificity of the biomarker; (iii) proportion of eligible patients tapering; and (iv) medication costs. RESULTS: In the base model, patients spent 2.9 months extra in LDA or remission in the biomarker strategy compared with usual care T2T over 48 months. Total costs were €43 301 and €42 568 for, respectively, the usual care and biomarker strategy, and treatment costs accounted for 91% of total costs in both scenarios. Cost savings were driven due to patients in the biomarker strategy experiencing remission or LDA earlier, and starting tapering sooner. Cost-effectiveness was not so much driven by costs or test characteristics of the biomarker (scenario 1/2), but rather by the level of early and proactive tapering and drug costs (scenarios 3/4). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a biomarker for prediction of response to b/tsDMARD treatment in RA can be of added value to current treat-to-target clinical care. However, gains in efficacy are modest and cost gains are depending on a combination of early proactive tapering and high medication costs.

Therapy with JAK inhibitors or bDMARDs and the risk of cardiovascular events in the Dutch rheumatoid arthritis population.

OBJECTIVE: Caution has been advocated recently when using Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with an unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile. We aimed to compare the incidences in cardiovascular events between JAKi or bDMARDs in a large population of RA patients. METHODS: RA patients starting a new bDMARD or JAKi between August 1st 2018 and January 31st 2022 have been selected from IQVIA's Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, covering about 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands. Study outcome was a cardiovascular event, defined as the start of platelet aggregation inhibitors during study period. The incidence densities of cardiovascular events were compared between JAKi and bDMARDs using multilevel Poisson regression, adjusted for exposition time and confounders. RESULTS: 15 191 unique patients were included, with 28 481 patient-years on treatment with either JAKi (2,373) or bDMARDs (26 108). Most patients were female (72%) and median age was 62 years. We found 36 cardiovascular events (1.52 events/100 patient years) during therapy with JAKi and 383 events (1.47 events/100 patient years) during therapy with bDMARDs, respectively, resulting in an adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.99 for JAKi compared with bDMARDs (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-1.41). Sub-analyses in patients >65 years, by sex, or separately for tofacitinib and baricitinib, yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: In a large Dutch general RA population, the risk of cardiovascular events seems not different between JAKi users and those using bDMARDs, although a small increase in higher risk patients cannot be excluded.

18F-FDG PET-CT in rheumatoid arthritis patients tapering TNFi: reliability, validity and predictive value.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reliability and validity of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET-CT scanning (FDG-PET) in RA patients with low disease activity tapering TNF inhibitors (TNFis) and its predictive value for successful tapering or discontinuation. METHODS: Patients in the tapering arm of the Dose REduction Strategies of Subcutaneous TNFi study, a randomized controlled trial of TNFi tapering in RA, underwent FDG-PET before tapering (baseline) and after maximal tapering. A total of 48 joints per scan were scored both visually [FDG-avid joint (FAJ), yes/no] and quantitatively [maximal and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean)]. Interobserver agreement was calculated in 10 patients at baseline. Quantitative and visual FDG-PET scores were investigated for (multilevel) association with clinical parameters both on a joint and patient level and for the predictive value at baseline and the change between baseline and maximal tapering (Δ) for successful tapering and discontinuation at 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients underwent FDG-PET. For performance of identification of FAJs on PET, Cohen's κ was 0.49 (range 0.35-0.63). For SUVmax and SUVmean, intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.80 (range 0.77-0.83) and 0.96 (0.9-1.0), respectively. On a joint level, swelling was significantly associated with SUVmax and SUVmean [B coefficients 1.0 (95% CI 0.73, 1.35) and 0.2 (0.08, 0.32), respectively]. On a patient level, only correlation with acute phase reactants was found. FDG-PET scores were not predictive of successful tapering or discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative FDG-PET arthritis scoring in RA patients with low disease activity is reliable and has some construct validity. However, no predictive values were found for FDG-PET parameters for successful tapering and/or discontinuation of TNFi.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab in RA: no predictive value of adalimumab serum levels and anti-adalimumab antibodies for prediction of response to the next bDMARD.

BACKGROUND: After adalimumab treatment failure, tumour necrosis factor inhibition (TNFi) and non-TNFi biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are equally viable options on a group level as subsequent treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the current best evidence synthesis. However, preliminary data suggest that anti-adalimumab antibodies (anti-drug antibodies, ADA) and adalimumab serum levels (ADL) during treatment predict response to a TNFi as subsequent treatment. OBJECTIVE: To validate the association of presence of ADA and/or low ADL with response to a subsequent TNFi bDMARD or non-TNFi bDMARD. Sub-analyses were performed for primary and secondary non-responders. METHODS: A diagnostic test accuracy retrospective cohort study was done in consenting RA patients who discontinued adalimumab after >3 months of treatment due to inefficacy and started another bDMARD. Inclusion criteria included the availability of (random timed) serum samples between ≥8 weeks after start and ≤2 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab, and clinical outcome measurements Disease Activity Score in 28 joints - C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) between 3 to 6 months after treatment switch. Test characteristics for EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) good response (DAS28-CRP based) after treatment with the next (non-)TNFi bDMARD were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic and sensitivity/specificity. RESULTS: 137 patients were included. ADA presence was not predictive for response in switchers to a TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 18%/75%) or a non-TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 33%/70%). The same was true for ADL levels in patients that switched to a TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 50%/52%) and patients that switched to a non-TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 32%/69%). Predictive value of ADA and ADL were similar for both primary and secondary non-responders to adalimumab. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to earlier research, we could not find predictive value for response to a second TNFi or non-TNFi for either ADA or random timed ADL.

Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, or disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety, and radiographic damage compared with usual care in people with RA and low disease activity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL (29 March 2018) and four trial registries (11 April 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We screened conference proceedings (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism 2005-2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in people with RA and low disease activity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: One previously included trial was excluded retrospectively in this update because it was not an RCT/CCT. We included eight additional trials, for a total of 14 studies (13 RCTs and one CCT, 3315 participants in total) reporting anti-TNF down-titration. Six studies (1148 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Eight studies (2111 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (three studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and three studies assessed disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (365 participants). These studies included data on all anti-TNF agents, but primarily adalimumab and etanercept. Thirteen studies were available in full text, one was available as abstract. We assessed the included studies generally at low to moderate risk of bias; our main concerns were bias due to open-label treatment and unblinded outcome assessment. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high. The included studies were performed at clinical centres around the world and included people with early as well as established RA, the majority of whom were female with mean ages between 47 and 60. Study durations ranged from 6 months to 3.5 years.We found that anti-TNF dose reduction leads to little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 26 to 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.24, absolute risk difference (ARD) 1%) compared with continuation. Also, anti-TNF dose reduction does not result in an important deterioration in function after 26 to 52 weeks (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) (high-certainty evidence, MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19, ARD 3%). Next to this, anti-TNF dose reduction may slightly reduce the proportion of participants switched to another biologic (low-certainty evidence), but probably slightly increases the proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95, ARD 2% higher). Anti-TNF dose reduction may cause little or no difference in serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and proportion of participants with persistent remission (low-certainty evidence).Results show that anti-TNF discontinuation probably slightly increases the mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 28 to 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.25, ARD 14%), and that the RR of persistent remission lies between 0.16 and 0.77 (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF discontinuation increases the proportion participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.59, ARD 7%) and may lead to a slight deterioration in function (HAQ-DI) (low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-TNF discontinuation influences the number of serious adverse events (due to very low-certainty evidence) and the number of withdrawals due to adverse events after 28 to 52 weeks probably increases slightly (moderate-certainty evidence, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.84, ARD 1% higher).Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may result in little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 72 to 78 weeks (low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering results in little or no difference in the proportion of participants with persistent remission after 18 months (high-certainty evidence, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06, ARD -9%) and may result in little or no difference in switching to another biologic (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may slightly increase proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression (low-certainty evidence) and probably leads to a slight deterioration of function after 18 months (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.2 higher, 0.02 lower to 0.42 higher, ARD 7% higher), It is uncertain whether anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering influences the number of serious adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that fixed-dose reduction of anti-TNF, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, is comparable to continuation of the standard dose regarding disease activity and function, and may be comparable with regards to the proportion of participants with persistent remission. Discontinuation (also without disease activity-guided adaptation) of anti-TNF is probably inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, the proportion of participants with persistent remission, function, and minimal radiographic damage. Disease activity-guided dose tapering of anti-TNF is comparable to continuation of treatment with respect to the proportion of participants with persistent remission and may be comparable regarding disease activity.Caveats of this review are that available data are mainly limited to etanercept and adalimumab, the heterogeneity between studies, and the use of superiority instead of non-inferiority designs.Future research should focus on the anti-TNF agents infliximab and golimumab; assessment of disease activity, function, and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and predictors for successful down-titration. Also, use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs, and disease activity-guided tapering instead of fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise to clinical practice.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of biologicals in rheumatoid arthritis: a disconnect between beliefs and facts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To give an overview of recently published articles covering therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last 18 months, two clinical studies and nine reviews were found after a systematic literature search. Most (narrative) reviews conclude that TDM should be used to improve biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients, whereas most of the clinical studies (including 13 studies identified earlier) whenever scrutinized do not support this conclusion. This disconnect between sobering data from prediction studies and test-treatment diagnostic studies and optimistic TDM beliefs in reviews is caused by failure to recognize incorrect study designs, false positives because of lack of validation after explorative multiple testing, cherry picking of studies, and incorrect interpretation of test characteristics. SUMMARY: Serum (anti)-drug level monitoring has been extensively studied in rheumatoid arthritis, but correctly designed and executed interventional prediction studies or test-treatment intervention studies are sparse and mostly negative. In contrast, many reviews advocate use of biological TDM in rheumatoid arthritis. On the basis of current evidence, therapeutic drug monitoring of biologicals cannot be recommended in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients, although two clinical scenarios deserve further study.

Long-term outcomes after disease activity-guided dose reduction of TNF inhibition in rheumatoid arthritis: 3-year data of the DRESS study - a randomised controlled pragmatic non-inferiority strategy trial.

OBJECTIVE: Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but disadvantages include adverse events (AEs) and high costs. This can be improved by disease activity-guided dose reduction (DR). We aimed to assess long-term outcomes of TNFi DR in RA by using 3-year data from the DRESS study (Dose REduction Strategy of Subcutaneous TNF inhibitors study). METHODS: In the intervention phase (month 0-18) of the DRESS study (Dutch trial register, NTR 3216), patients were randomised to DR or usual care (UC). In the extension phase (month 18-36), treatment strategies in both groups converged to continuation of protocolised tight control and allowed dose optimisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done on flare, disease activity (28 joint count-based disease activity score with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP)), functioning (health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI)), quality of life (Euroqol 5 dimensions 5 levels questionnaire (EQ5D-5L)), medication use, radiographic progression (Sharp van der Heijde score (SvdH)) and AE. RESULTS: 172/180 patients included in the DRESS study were included in the extension phase. Cumulative incidences of major flare were 10% and 12% (-2%, 95% CI -8 to 15) in DR and UC groups in the extension phase, and 17% and 14% (3%, 95% CI -9 to 13) from 0 to 36 months. Cumulative incidences of short-lived flares were 43% (33 to 52%)%) and 35% (23 to 49%)%) in DR and UC groups in the extension phase, and 83% (75 to 90%)%) and 44% (31 to 58%)%) from 0 to 36 months. Mean DAS28-CRP, HAQ-DI, EQ5D-5L and SvdH remained stable and not significantly different between groups. TNFi use remained low in the DR group and decreased in the UC group. Cumulative incidences of AE were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy of disease activity guided TNFi DR in RA are maintained up to 3 years, with a large reduction in TNFi use, but no other benefits. Implementation of DR would vastly improve the cost-effective use of TNFi.

A multi-biomarker score measuring disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients tapering adalimumab or etanercept: predictive value for clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the predictive value of the baseline multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) score in long-standing RA patients with low disease activity tapering TNF inhibitors (TNFi) for successful tapering or discontinuation, occurrence of flare and major flare, and radiographic progression. Methods: Dose REduction Strategies of Subcutaneous TNF inhibitors (Dutch Trial Register, NTR 3216) is an 18-month non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing tapering of TNFi until discontinuation or flaring with usual care (UC) in long-standing RA patients with stable low disease activity. Flare was defined as DAS28-CRP increase >1.2 or >0.6 if current DAS ⩾3.2; major flare was a flare lasting >3 months, despite treatment intervention. MBDA scores were measured at baseline. Radiographs were scored at baseline and 18 months using the Sharp-van der Heijde score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was used to analyse the capability of baseline MBDA score to predict the above-mentioned outcomes. Results: Serum samples and outcomes were available for 171 of 180 patients from Dose REduction Strategies of Subcutaneous TNF inhibitors (115 tapering; 56 UC). AUROC analyses showed that baseline MBDA score was not predictive for the above-mentioned clinical outcomes in the taper group, but did predict major flare in the UC group (AUROC = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.88). Radiographic progression was minimal and was not predicted by MDBA score. Conclusion: In this disease activity-guided strategy study of TNFi tapering in RA patients with low disease activity, baseline MBDA score was not predictive for successful tapering, discontinuation, flare, major flare or radiographic progression in patients who tapered TNFi.

Disease activity-guided dose optimisation of adalimumab and etanercept is a cost-effective strategy compared with non-tapering tight control rheumatoid arthritis care: analyses of the DRESS study.

BACKGROUND: A disease activity-guided dose optimisation strategy of adalimumab or etanercept (TNFi (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors)) has shown to be non-inferior in maintaining disease control in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with usual care. However, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is still unknown. METHOD: This is a preplanned cost-effectiveness analysis of the Dose REduction Strategy of Subcutaneous TNF inhibitors (DRESS) study, a randomised controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial performed in two Dutch rheumatology outpatient clinics. Patients with low disease activity using TNF inhibitors were included. Total healthcare costs were measured and quality adjusted life years (QALY) were based on EQ5D utility scores. Decremental cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using bootstrap analyses; incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) was used to express cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: 180 patients were included, and 121 were allocated to the dose optimisation strategy and 59 to control. The dose optimisation strategy resulted in a mean cost saving of -€12 280 (95 percentile -€10 502; -€14 104) per patient per 18 months. There is an 84% chance that the dose optimisation strategy results in a QALY loss with a mean QALY loss of -0.02 (-0.07 to 0.02). The decremental cost-effectiveness ratio (DCER) was €390 493 (€5 085 184; dominant) of savings per QALY lost. The mean iNMB was €10 467 (€6553-€14 037). Sensitivity analyses using 30% and 50% lower prices for TNFi remained cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Disease activity-guided dose optimisation of TNFi results in considerable cost savings while no relevant loss of quality of life was observed. When the minimal QALY loss is compensated with the upper limit of what society is willing to pay or accept in the Netherlands, the net savings are still high. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3216; Post-results.

Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumor necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but they are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation or disease activity guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety and radiographic damage compared with usual care in patients with RA and low disease activity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 8, 2013; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 8 September 2013); EMBASE (1947 to 8 September 2013); Science Citation Index (Web of Science); and conference proceedings of the American College of Rheumatology (2005 to 2012) and European League against Rheumatism (2005 to 2013). We contacted authors of the seven included studies to ask for additional information on their study; five responded. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in patients with RA and a low disease activity state. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs and one CCT (total 1203 participants), reporting anti-TNF down-titration, were included. Three studies (559 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Five studies (732 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (two studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and one study assessed disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (137 participants). These studies include only adalimumab and etanercept; controlled data on other anti-TNF agents are absent. Two studies were available in full text; one was assessed as having low risk of bias and the other high risk. Five studies were available only as one or more abstracts. Because data provided in these abstracts were limited, risk of bias was unclear. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high.Dose reduction of anti-TNF (etanercept data only) showed no statistically significant or clinical relevant difference in disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) (mean difference (MD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.31) (scale 0.9 to 8; higher score indicates worse disease activity). The proportion of participants who maintained low disease activity was slightly lower among participants given reduced doses of the anti-TNF agent (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, absolute risk difference (ARD) 9%). Radiographic outcome was slightly worse, but this was not clinically meaningful, compared with continuation of anti-TNF (MD 0.11, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.14) (scale 0 to 448; higher score indicates greater joint damage). Function was not statistically different between anti-TNF dose reduction and continuation (MD 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.20) (scale 0 to 3; higher score indicates worse functioning). Reinstalment of anti-TNF after failure of dose reduction showed a 5% risk of persistent flare. Data on numbers of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.45, ARD -2%) and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1,92, ARD -1%) were inconclusive. Most outcomes were based on moderate quality evidence.Participants who discontinued anti-TNF (adalimumab and etanercept data) had higher mean DAS28 (DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR): MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) and DAS28-C-reactive protein (CRP): MD 0.57 95% CI -0.09 to 1.23) and were less likely to maintain a low disease activity state (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.68, ARD 40%). Also, radiographic and functional outcomes are worse after anti-TNF discontinuation (MD 0.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.69, and MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, respectively). Data on numbers of SAEs (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.63, ARD 2%) and withdrawals due to AEs (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.24, ARD -1%) were inconclusive. Most outcomes were based on moderate quality evidence.The one study comparing disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (adalimumab and etanercept data) reported no statistically significant differences in functional outcomes (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.42). Significantly higher mean disease activity was found among participants with tapered anti-TNF at study end (MD 0.50, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.89). No full text of this trial was available for this review. No other major outcomes were reported. All outcomes were based on low quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude, mostly based on moderate quality evidence, that non-disease activity guided dose reduction of etanercept 50 mg weekly to 25 mg weekly, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, seems as effective as continuing the standard dose with respect to disease activity and functional outcomes, although dose reduction significantly induces minimal and not clinically meaningful differences in radiological progression. Discontinuation (also without disease activity-guided adaptation) of adalimumab and etanercept is inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity and radiological outcomes and function. Disease activity-guided dose tapering of adalimumab and etanercept seems slightly inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, with no difference in function. However the only study investigating this comparison included lower than projected numbers of participants.Caveats of this review are that available data are limited. Also, the heterogeneity between studies and the suboptimal design choices (including absence of disease activity-guided dose reduction and discontinuation and use of superiority designs) limit definitive conclusions. None of the included studies assessed long-term safety and costs, although these factors are specific reasons why clinicians consider lowering the dose or stopping the administration of anti-TNF agents.Future research should include other anti-TNF agents; assessment of disease activity, function and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness and predictors for successful down-titration. Also use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs and disease activity-guided instead of fixed-dose tapering or stopping would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise the information to clinical practice.

Limited Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Routine Radiographs in Newly Presenting Arthritis Suspected of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Current recommendations suggest that patients with newly presenting arthritis suspected of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should undergo routine radiographs of hands and feet (X-HF) as the presence of RA-associated erosions might be of diagnostic and prognostic value. Our objective was to investigate the prevalence, diagnostic, and prognostic value of RA-associated erosions seen on routine X-HF in a large, recent cohort of patients with newly presenting arthritis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed between 2016 and 2019 in patients with newly presenting arthritis suspected of RA. Patients were included if arthritis was present at diagnosis, rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibodies were measured, RA was noted in the differential diagnosis, and routine X-HF were conducted. Outcomes were the prevalence of one or more RA-associated erosion(s), and whether diagnostic or prognostic classification were changed by erosivity. Seronegative patients, patients without acute phase reactants, and patients with longer symptom duration were analyzed as subgroups. RESULTS: RA-associated erosions were found in 32 of 724 patients (4.4%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.1-6.2). Erosions led to a change of diagnostic classification in two patients (0.3%, 95% CI 0.01-1.1) and changed prognostic classification in three patients (0.4%, 95% CI 0.1-1.3). Seronegative patients and patients without elevated acute phase reactants had significantly lower prevalence of erosions (χ2 9.4, P = 0.002, χ2 6.5, P = 0.01). Longer symptom duration was not associated with a different prevalence of erosions (χ2 0.4, P = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The recommendation of conducting routine X-HF in patients with newly presenting arthritis suspected of RA might be reconsidered due to low prevalence of early erosive disease and lack of diagnostic and prognostic value.

Perspective of Dutch Patients with Gout on Continuation or Discontinuation of Urate-Lowering Therapy During Remission: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term gout management is based on reducing serum urate by using urate-lowering therapy (ULT). A lifelong treat-to-target approach is advocated, although a ULT (taper to) stop attempt can be considered (treat-to-avoid symptoms approach) during remission. Exploring the beliefs of patients with gout on long-term ULT strategies during remission is important for optimizing gout management. We aimed to identify factors that influence the decision for continuation or discontinuation of ULT and to determine their relative importance according to patients with gout in remission. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used. First, semistructured interviews (substudy 1) were conducted to identify barriers and facilitators for the (dis)continuation of ULT using inductive thematic analysis. Afterwards, these barriers/facilitators were summarized into neutrally phrased items and used in a maximum difference scaling study (substudy 2) to determine their relative importance using the rescaled probability score. RESULTS: Substudies 1 and 2 included 18 and 156 patients, respectively. Substudy 1 yielded 22 items within 10 overarching themes. Substudy 2 revealed that the perceived risk of joint damage and gout flares and that ULT use gives some assurance were the most important items. The costs, ease of receiving ULT, and its practical use were the least important items. CONCLUSION: These results can aid shared decision-making and provide input for what is important to discuss with patients with gout in remission when they consider ULT discontinuation. The emphasis should be on the risk of having gout flares and joint damage, not so much on facilitating how easily medication is received.

Dose REduction strategy of subcutaneous TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: design of a pragmatic randomised non inferiority trial, the DRESS study.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary, mostly uncontrolled studies suggest that dose reduction or discontinuation of tumour necrosis factor blockers can be achieved in a relevant proportion of patients with RA without loss of disease control. However, long term safety, cost effectiveness and feasibility in clinical practice remain uncertain. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a 18-months pragmatic, non-inferiority, cost minimalisation, randomized controlled trial on dose reduction and discontinuation of the subcutaneous tumour necrosis factor (TNF) blockers adalimumab and etanercept in RA patients with low disease activity. 180 RA patients with low disease activity (DAS28 < 3.2 or clinical judgment of the rheumatologist) are randomized 2:1 to either increased spacing and eventually discontinuation after 6 months of the TNF blocker, and usual care. Implementation is done in routine daily care, using treat to target and feedback implementation in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is non-inferiority (NI margin 20%) in cumulative incidence of persistent (> 3 months) RA flare, according to a recently validated DAS28 based flare criterion (DAS28 change > 1.2, or DAS28 increase of 0.6 and current DAS28 ≥ 3.2). Secondary outcomes include mean disease activity, function, radiographic progression, safety and cost effectiveness. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) differences between groups are expressed as a decremental cost effectiveness ratio (DCER), i.e. saved costs divided by (possible) loss in QALY. DISCUSSION: The design of this study targeted several clinical and methodological issues on TNF blocker dose de-escalation, including how to taper the TNF blockers, the satisfactory control condition, how to define flare, implementation in clinical practice, and the choice of the non-inferiority margin. Pragmatic cost minimalisation studies using non-inferiority designs and DCERs will become more mainstream as cost effectiveness in healthcare gains importance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR3216, The study has received ethical review board approval (number NL37704.091.11).

[Methotrexate to prevent progression to rheumatoid arthritis?] / Methotrexaat om reumatoïde artritis te voorkomen?

The TREAT EARLIER was aimed at testing whether methotrexate could prevent the evolution from clinically suspect arthralgia to Rheumatoid Arthritis. Although the primary outcome was negative, symptoms did improve during and after use of methotrexate. Here we discuss how to interpret these findings, and place the study in the existing evidence.

Urate-lowering therapy following a treat-to-target continuation strategy compared to a treat-to-avoid-symptoms discontinuation strategy in gout patients in remission (GO TEST Finale): study protocol of a multicentre pragmatic randomized superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term gout treatment is based on reducing serum urate levels using urate-lowering therapy (ULT). Most guidelines recommend using a lifelong continuation treat-to-target (T2T) strategy, in which ULT is dosed or combined until a serum urate target has been reached and maintained. However, a frequently used alternative strategy in clinical practice is a treat-to-avoid-symptoms (T2S) ULT discontinuation strategy, with the possibility of restarting the medication. This latter strategy aims at an acceptable symptom state, regardless of serum urate levels. High-quality evidence to support either strategy for patients in prolonged remission while using ULT is lacking. METHODS: We developed an investigator-driven pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, randomized, superiority treatment strategy trial (GO TEST Finale). At least 278 gout patients using ULT who are in remission (>12 months, preliminary gout remission criteria) will be randomized 1:1 to a continued T2T strategy (treatment target serum urate < 0.36 mmol/l) or switched to a T2S discontinuation strategy in which ULT is tapered to stop and restarted in case of (persistent or recurrent) flaring. The primary outcome is the between-group difference in the proportion of patients not in remission during the last 6 months of 24 months follow-up and will be analyzed using a two proportion z test. Secondary outcomes are group differences in gout flare incidence, reintroduction or adaptation of ULT, use of anti-inflammatory drugs, serum urate changes, occurrence of adverse events (with a special interest in cardiovascular and renal events), and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first clinical trial comparing two ULT treatment strategies in patients with gout in remission. It will contribute to more specific and unambiguous guideline recommendations and improved cost-effectiveness of long-term gout treatment. It also paves the way (exploratory) to individualized long-term ULT treatment. In this article, we elaborate on some of our trial design choices and their clinical and methodological consequences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) NL9245. Registered on 2 February 2021 (METC Oost-Nederland NL74350.091.20); EudraCT EUCTR2020-005730-15-NL. Registered on 11 January 2021.

Beliefs of rheumatologists and general practitioners on urate lowering therapy: a cross-sectional study.

Objective: To describe beliefs of physicians and patients in primary and secondary care about urate-lowering therapy (ULT), to examine differences in physicians' medication beliefs and to examine the association of physicians' medication beliefs with the prescribed dosage of ULT, gout outcomes and patients' medication beliefs. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among rheumatologists and general practitioners (GPs) and their patients using ULT in The Netherlands. All participants filled out the Beliefs About Medication Questionnaire (BMQ). Demographics of physicians were collected through questionnaires. Patient and disease characteristics were collected through questionnaires and electronic medical records. Differences between rheumatologists and GPs in the BMQ subscales Necessity and Concern and the necessity-concern difference (NCD) score were analysed by two-sample t-tests. Multilevel analyses were performed to examine the association of physicians' BMQ scores with the prescribed dosage of ULT, gout outcomes (number of gout flares, serum urate) and patients' BMQ scores. Results: A total of 28 rheumatologists, 443 rheumatology patients, 45 GPs and 294 GP patients were included. The mean NCD scores were 7.1 (s.d. 3.6), 4.0 (s.d. 4.0), and 4.2 (s.d. 5.0) for rheumatologists, GPs and patients, respectively. Rheumatologists scored higher on necessity beliefs [mean difference 1.4 (95% CI 0.0, 2.8)] and lower on concern beliefs [mean difference -1.7 (95% CI -2.7, -0.7)] compared with GPs. No associations between physicians' beliefs and prescribed dosage of ULT, gout outcomes or patients' beliefs were found. Conclusion: Rheumatologists had higher necessity and lower ULT concern beliefs compared with GPs and patients. Physicians' beliefs were not related to prescribed ULT dosage and patient outcomes. The role of physicians' beliefs in gout management in patients using ULT seems limited. Future qualitative research can provide more insights into physicians' views of gout management.