Can biomarkers predict successful tapering of conventional disease-modifying therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients in stable remission?

OBJECTIVES: Specific guidelines for managing RA patients in clinical remission for ≥6 months on cs-DMARDs are lacking. Tapering of treatment is encouraged, however, without validated biomarkers for success. We aimed to assess the rate of sustained remission after 12 months in patients who either (i) followed structured cs-DMARD tapering or (ii) continued therapy, focusing on the added value of biomarkers as predictors of outcome. METHODS: RA patients fulfilling 3v-DAS28CRP<2.6 for ≥6 months on stable cs-DMARD therapy were included. Patients were offered structured tapering, with 117 accepting tapering and 83 continuing therapy. Clinical, ultrasound, immunological (T-cell subsets) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data were collected. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in sustained remission without relapse after 12 months. Regression analyses were used to identify predictors of sustained remission. RESULTS: Of those who tapered, 64% remained in clinical remission after 12 months compared with 80% (p=0.018) of patients on stable treatment. In the tapering group, higher levels of CRP, TJC, % inflammation-related T-cell (IRC) and PROs were associated with flare (all p<0.05), with a trend for total PD (p=0.066). A model predicting sustained remission retained RAQoL, total PD and IRC (85% accuracy, AUROC=0.893, p<0.0001). In the non-tapering group, higher CRP, ESR, SJC and shorter disease duration (all p<0.05) were associated with flare, with no parameter able to predict sustained remission. CONCLUSIONS: In the tapering group, the combination of clinical, PRO, US and T-cell parameters demonstrated added value for predicting sustained remission compared with clinical parameters alone. These data may inform best tapering practice.

Defining remission in rheumatoid arthritis: does it matter to the patient? A comparison of multi-dimensional remission criteria and patient reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: In a cross-sectional study, we evaluated the prevalence of 'multi-dimensional remission' (MDR) and its component parameters, assessed using objective measures in a cohort of RA patients in treatment-induced DAS28-remission, and their relationship with patient-reported outcome measures. We sought to confirm the feasibility and face validity of the MDR construct, providing a platform for future longitudinal studies in which its clinical utility might be further established. METHODS: 605 patients were selected from an inflammatory arthritis register using DAS28(CRP)<2.6. Demographic, clinical and patients reported outcomes (PRO) data were collected. Ultrasound power doppler synovitis (n = 364) and T-cell subsets (n = 297) were also measured. Remission using clinical parameters was defined as: tender and swollen joint count (TJC/SJC) and CRP all ⩽1; ultrasound remission: total power doppler = 0 and T cell remission: positive normalized naïve T-cell frequency. MDR was defined as the achievement of all three dimensions. RESULTS: Overall, only 53% (321/605) of the patients achieved clinical parameters, failures being mainly due to raised CRP (52%), TJC (28)>1 (37%) or SJC (28)>1 (16%). 211/364 (58%) of patients achieved ultrasound remission and 193/297 (65%) patients showed T-cell remission. Complete data were available for 231 patients. MDR was observed in only 35% and was associated with the best (lower) PRO scores (all P ⩽ 0.05 vs non-MDR) when compared with the other definitions of remission assessed. The MDR rate was similar in early and established RA patients on b-DMARDs; however, it was lower in established RA patients who received multiple cs-DMARDs (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, MDR, which may represent a state closer to normality, was found to occur in about a third of DAS28-remission patients and was associated with better patient-reported outcome measures. MDR could be a novel optimal treatment target, notably from a patient's perspective. The relevance of these findings needs further assessment.

Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: is it all the same?

Remission is the key treatment goal in rheumatoid arthritis and should provide the optimal state for patients. Clinical remission criteria are based on composite scores of disease activity and are widely used in clinical practice and trials. With the use of biologic therapies and treat to target strategies, rates of clinical remission have significantly improved. Despite achieving this target, many patients demonstrate structural and functional deterioration. This raises the question regarding the validity of clinical criteria, although they have evolved significantly over the years. Imaging modalities such as ultrasound have been described as more accurate methods of assessing the remission state compared with clinical assessment alone. Furthermore, immuno-pathological assessments are gaining significant interest as this would enable assessment of disease activity at the primary site of pathology. Further research is required to develop accurate biomarkers of remission. We aimed to review the evolution of remission criteria in rheumatoid arthritis to date and to evaluate novel concepts in and the future of defining remission.