Search

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of two tapering strategies after achieving controlled disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), during 1 year of follow-up., Methods: In this multicentre single-blinded (research nurses) randomised controlled trial, patients with RA were included who achieved controlled disease, defined as a Disease Activity Score (DAS) ≤ 2.4 and a Swollen Joint Count (SJC) ≤ 1, treated with both a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) and a TNF inhibitor. Eligible patients were randomised into gradual tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors. Medication was tapered if the RA was still under control, by cutting the dosage into half, a quarter and thereafter it was stopped. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with a disease flare, defined as DAS > 2.4 and/or SJC > 1. Secondary outcomes were DAS, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ5D) and functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index [HAQ-DI]) after 1 year and over time., Results: A total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to tapering csDMARDs (n = 94) or tapering anti-TNF (n = 95). The cumulative flare rates in the csDMARD and anti-TNF tapering group were, respectively, 33 % (95% CI,24% to 43 %) and 43 % (95% CI, 33% to 53 % (p = 0.17). Mean DAS, HAQ-DI and EQ-5D did not differ between tapering groups after 1 year and over time., Conclusion: Up to 9 months, flare rates of tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors were similar. After 1 year, a non-significant difference was found of 10 % favouring csDMARD tapering. Tapering TNF inhibitors was, therefore, not superior to tapering csDMARDs. From a societal perspective, it would be sensible to taper the TNF inhibitor first, because of possible cost reductions and less long-term side effects., Trial Registration Number: NTR2754., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). No long-term intervention trials on CVD risk factors have been published, and a debate on the efficacy of controlling traditional risk factors in RA is ongoing. We aimed to evaluate a treat-to-target approach versus usual care regarding traditional CVD risk factors in patients with RA., Methods: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients with RA aged <70 years without prior CVD or diabetes mellitus were randomised 1:1 to either a treat-to-target approach or usual care of traditional CVD risk factors. The primary outcome was defined as change in carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) over 5 years, and the secondary outcome was a composite of first occurrence of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events., Results: A total of 320 patients (mean age 52.4 years; 69.7% female) with RA underwent randomisation and 219 patients (68.4%) completed 5 years of follow-up. The mean cIMT progression was significantly reduced in the treat-to-target group compared with usual care (0.023 [95% CI 0.011 to 0.036] mm vs 0.045 [95% CI 0.030 to 0.059] mm; p=0.028). Cardiovascular events occurred in 2 (1.3%) of the patients in the treat-to-target group vs 7 (4.7%) in those receiving usual care (p=0.048 by log-rank test)., Conclusion: This study provides evidence on the benefit of a treat-to-target approach of traditional CVD risk factors for primary prevention in patients with well-treated RA., Trial Registration Number: NTR3873., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MCC served as a consultant for Merck and received lecture honoraria from Merck., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Although RA patients achieve clinical remission, risk of flare still exists. Given the association between US synovitis and increased risk of flare, it is of clinical interest whether these patients report a different health status. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate the frequency of US remission in RA patients in clinical remission and to compare the health status of RA patients in clinical remission with those who were also in US remission., Methods: In a prospective study, we included 89 RA patients (aged >17 years) treated with a synthetic DMARD and a TNF inhibitor who were in remission (DAS in 44 joints ⩽2.4 and swollen joint count ⩽1). Demographic characteristics, swollen and tender joints, laboratory variables, US (MCP2-5, PIP2-5, wrists and MTP2-5) and patient-reported outcomes (general health, functional ability, fatigue, depression and anxiety, pain and morning stiffness) were recorded at two consecutive visits (3 months apart). US remission was defined as grey scale grade ⩽1 and power Doppler = 0., Results: At visit 1, 39% of patients were in US remission. At visit 2, 32% of patients were in US remission. At visit 1, functional ability (HAQ) was scored lower by patients in US remission (P = 0.029). At visit 2, HAQ scores were similar (P = 0.928). At visit 2, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety score and visual analog scale pain were significantly higher in patients in US remission. Similar levels were found for the other patient-reported outcomes., Conclusion: One-third of RA patients in clinical remission were in US remission. In our study population, we could not find a clear association between health status of RA patients and being in US remission., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)