A matrix risk model for the prediction of rapid radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving different dynamic treatment strategies: post hoc analyses from the BeSt study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a matrix model for the prediction of rapid radiographic progression (RRP) in subpopulations of patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving different dynamic treatment strategies. METHODS: Data from 465 patients with recent-onset RA randomised to receive initial monotherapy or combination therapy were used. Predictors for RRP (increase in Sharp-van der Heijde score > or =5 after 1 year) were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. For subpopulations, the estimated risk of RRP per treatment group and the number needed to treat (NNT) were visualised in a matrix. RESULTS: The presence of autoantibodies, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erosion score and treatment group were significant independent predictors of RRP in the matrix. Combination therapy was associated with a markedly reduced risk of RRP. The positive and negative predictive values of the matrix were 62% and 91%, respectively. The NNT with initial combination therapy to prevent one patient from RRP with monotherapy was in the range 2-3, 3-7 and 7-25 for patients with a high, intermediate and low predicted risk, respectively. CONCLUSION: The matrix model visualises the risk of RRP for subpopulations of patients with recent-onset RA if treated dynamically with initial monotherapy or combination therapy. Rheumatologists might use the matrix for weighing their initial treatment choice.

DAS-driven therapy versus routine care in patients with recent-onset active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of Disease Activity Score (DAS)-driven therapy and routine care in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis receiving traditional antirheumatic therapy from either the BeSt study, a randomised controlled trial comparing different treatment strategies (group A), or two Early Arthritis Clinics (group B) were included. In group A, systematic DAS-driven treatment adjustments aimed to achieve low disease activity (DAS < or =2.4). In group B, treatment was left to the discretion of the treating doctor. Functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) and Sharp/van der Heijde radiographic score (SHS) were evaluated. RESULTS: At baseline, patients in group A (n = 234) and group B (n = 201) had comparable demographic characteristics and a mean HAQ of 1.4. Group A had a longer median disease duration than group B (0.5 vs 0.4 years, p = 0.016), a higher mean DAS28 (6.1 vs 5.7, p<0.001), more rheumatoid factor-positive patients (66% vs 42%, p<0.001) and more patients with erosions (71% vs 53%, p<0.001). After 1 year, the HAQ improvement was 0.7 vs 0.5 (p = 0.029), and the percentage in remission (DAS28 <2.6) 31% vs 18% (p<0.005) in groups A and B, respectively. In group A, the median SHS progression was 2.0 (expected progression 7.0), in group B, the SHS progression was 1.0 (expected progression 4.4). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis receiving traditional treatment, systematic DAS-driven therapy results in significantly better clinical improvement and possibly improves the suppression of joint damage progression.

Implementation of a physical activity intervention for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a case study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential facilitators and barriers regarding the implementation on a larger scale of an internet-based physical activity intervention which had previously proved to be effective in a randomized, controlled trial concerning sedentary patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Assuming a central delivery of the intervention by two trained physical therapists in four regions in the Netherlands, the following activities were employed: the recruitment of potential participants (RA patients), the acquisition of cooperation from referring rheumatologists and the acquisition of reimbursement from regional health insurance companies. Evaluation was done by means of the Reach, Evaluation, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework, of which the following three dimensions were considered relevant: Reach (the number of potential participants), Adoption (readiness for adopting the programme in real life among rheumatologists) and Implementation (the extent to which the intervention could be delivered as intended). Evaluation measures comprised a postal survey among 927 patients with RA in two regions, a telephone survey among rheumatology centres in four regions and consultations with five regional health insurance companies. RESULTS: Seventy-six out of 461 responding RA patients (20%) met the original study inclusion criteria (being sedentary and having access to the internet) and were interested in participation. However, the potential costs of the purchase of a bicycle ergometer and the interference with patients' current physical therapy were obstacles for eligible patients actually to participate. Rheumatologists in four out of five rheumatology centres were willing to participate. All five health insurance companies were willing to reimburse the guidance and feedback by the physical therapist, and the costs of the internet site (estimated costs 271 euro [203 pound] per patient per year), but not the bicycle ergometer (estimated costs 350 euro [262 pound]), provided that current physical therapy would be discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitators for the implementation of an internet-based physical activity intervention were: (i) a considerable proportion of RA patients were eligible and interested in the programme; (ii) the majority of rheumatologists were willing to refer patients; and (iii) health insurance companies were willing partially to reimburse the intervention. Barriers were the additional costs for patients and their unwillingness to discontinue current physical therapy. These findings underscore the need for additional research into barriers to participation in physical activity interventions among patients with RA, and in reimbursement strategies in particular.