Search

Objective: The tapering of biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (b‐DMARD) therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in stable remission is frequently undertaken, but specific guidance on how to successfully taper is lacking. The objective of this study is to identify predictors of flare in patients in stable b‐DMARD–induced clinical remission, who did or did not follow structured b‐DMARD tapering. Methods: Patients with RA receiving b‐DMARD treatment who had achieved sustained remission according to a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C‐reactive protein level (DAS28‐CRP) <2.6 for ≥6 months were offered tapering. Clinical, ultrasound (US) (total power Doppler [PD]/grayscale abnormalities), CD4+ T cell subsets, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at inclusion. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of flare (loss of DAS28‐CRP remission) over 12 months. Logistic regression analyses identified predictors of flare. Dichotomization into high/low‐risk groups was based on 80% specificity using the area under the receiving operator curve (AUROC). Results: Of 63 patients choosing tapering, 23 (37%) flared compared with 12 of 60 (20%) on stable treatment (P = 0.043). All patients who flared regained remission upon reinstating treatment. In the tapering group, flare was associated with lower regulatory T cell (Treg) (P < 0.0001) and higher CRP levels (P < 0.0001), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (P < 0.035), and inflammation‐related cells (IRCs) (P = 0.054); stepwise modeling selected Tregs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.350, P = 0.004), IRCs (OR = 1.871, P = 0.007), and CRP level (OR = 1.577, P = 0.004) with 81.7% accuracy and AUROC = 0.890. In the continued therapy group, modeling retained the tender joint count, total PD, and visual analog scale pain score, with 82.1% accuracy and AUROC = 0.899. Most patients in the study were considered low risk of flare (80 of 123 patients [65%]). Only 5 of 37 (13.5%) of the low‐risk patients who tapered flared, which was notable compared with the continued therapy group (20% flare). Conclusion: Flare on tapering b‐DMARDs was predicted by lower Tregs and elevated inflammation biomarkers (IRCs/CRP level); flare on continued b‐DMARDs was associated with raised pain parameters and US inflammation. Knowledge of these biomarkers should improve outcomes by targeted selection for tapering, and by increased monitoring of those on continued therapy predicted to flare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presence of a disease continuum in inflammatory arthritis (IA) is a recognised concept, with distinct stages from at-risk stage (presence of anti citrullinated-peptide autoantibody) to diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including therapy-induced remission. Despite T-cell dysregulation being a key feature of RA, there are few reports of T-cell phenotyping along the IA-continuum. We investigated the disturbances of naïve, regulatory and inflammation related cell (IRC) CD4+ T-cell subsets in 705 individuals across the IA-continuum, developing a simple risk-score (summing presence/absence of a risk-associated with a subset) to predict progression from one stage to the next. In 158 at-risk individuals, the 3 subsets had individual association with progression to IA and the risk-score was highly predictive (p < 0.0001). In evolving IA patients, 219/294 developed RA; the risk-score included naïve and/or Treg and predicted progression (p < 0.0001). In 120 untreated RA patients, the risk-score for predicting treatment-induced remission using naïve T-cells had an odds ratio of 15.4 (p < 0.0001). In RA patients in treatment-induced remission, a score using naïve T-cells predicted disease flare (p < 0.0001). Evaluating the risk of progression using naïve CD4+ T-cells was predictive of progression along the whole IA-continuum. This should allow identification of individuals at high-risk of progression, permitting targeted therapy for improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the predictors of joint damage progression and stringent remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the RA treatments. Other topics include the use of targeted ultrasound (US) techniques to monitor remission, and the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tenosynovitis and osteitis in predicting erosion progression.

Background: It is now accepted that the optimum treatment goal for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is sustained remission, as this has been shown to be associated with the best patient outcomes. There is little guidance on how to manage patients once remission is achieved; however, it is recommended that patients can taper therapy, with a view to discontinuing and achieving drug-free remission if treatment goals are maintained. This narrative review aims to present the current literature on drug-free remission in rheumatoid arthritis, with a view to identifying which strategies are best for disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) tapering and to highlight areas of unmet clinical need. Methods: We performed a narrative review of the literature, which included research articles, meta-analyses and review papers. The key search terms included were rheumatoid arthritis, remission, drug-free remission, b-DMARDS/biologics, cs-DMARDS and tapering. The databases that were searched included PubMed and Google Scholar. For each article, the reference section of the paper was reviewed to find additional relevant articles. Results: It has been demonstrated that DFR is possible in a proportion of RA patients achieving clinically defined remission (both on cs and b-DMARDS). Immunological, imaging and clinical associations with/predictors of DFR have all been identified, including the presence of autoantibodies, absence of Power Doppler (PD) signal on ultrasound (US), lower disease activity according to composite scores of disease activity and lower patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) at treatment cessation. Conclusions: DFR in RA may be an achievable goal in certain patients. This carries importance in reducing medication-induced side-effects and potential toxicity, the burden of taking treatment if not required and cost effectiveness, specifically for biologic therapy. Prospective studies of objective biomarkers will help facilitate the prediction of successful treatment discontinuation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]