Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: wishful thinking or clinical reality?

OBJECTIVES: To review the concept of remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). To delineate differences between significant clinical improvements, very low disease activity, and the achievement of true remission. To evaluate the prevalence of these outcomes with biologic therapy and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) regimens. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for the key words "remission" and "rheumatoid arthritis." Efficacy data of RA clinical trials from 1985 to 2004 are based on a literature review of medical journals and abstracts from rheumatology meetings. We review 3 well-defined sets of criteria established by the ACR, EULAR, and the FDA for measuring remission. RESULTS: Defining remissions in clinical trials and clinical practice requires appropriate standardized and objective outcome measures, such as the ACR and EULAR remission criteria. Traditional DMARDs often provide symptom relief, improvements in physical function, and the slowing of radiographic progression in patients with RA, but rarely lead to the complete cessation of RA activity. Remission, as defined by the ACR criteria, has been observed in 7 to 22% of patients treated with traditional DMARD monotherapy (ie, gold, penicillamine, methotrexate [MTX], cyclosporine A, or sulfasalazine), but these remissions have often been short-lived. Treatments with DMARD combinations, biologic monotherapy, and biologic combination therapy with MTX offer greater hope and may facilitate the higher rates of remission. Clinical trial results have shown that newer DMARDs such as leflunomide or the combination of multiple DMARDs can generally elicit greater EULAR remission rates (ranging from 13 to 42%) than monotherapies. Biologic combinations with MTX have also been shown to induce significant remission (as defined by the EULAR criteria) in RA patients, with a 31% rate observed with infliximab plus MTX at 54 weeks, a 50% rate observed for adalimumab plus MTX after 2 years of therapy, and a 41% rate observed for etanercept plus MTX after 2 years of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of biologics and combination therapy, identifying remission or at least very low disease activity as the ultimate goal in RA therapy should become the new standard for the outcome of all RA trials. The criteria established by the FDA, the ACR, and the EULAR represent an important step toward achieving this goal.     

Disease control with glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

DMARDs aim to improve long-term prognosis of RA, as indicated by reduced progression of radiographic damage and maintenance of function. However, it may be more appropriate to consider disease-modifying strategies rather than drugs alone. Despite the challenges (e.g. lack of standard outcome measures, poor reporting of dose levels), a systematic review of 15 studies involving more than 1400 patients showed that glucocorticoid treatment for 1-2 years slowed radiographic progression compared with control treatment. Evidence for longer term disease-modifying benefits of glucocorticoids comes from individual studies with extended follow-up. In the Utrecht study, patients with early RA originally assigned to prednisone 10 mg/day for 2 years and then tapered off the therapy showed significantly less radiographic progression at follow-up after a further 3 years than patients originally assigned placebo, with no significant difference in the use of synthetic DMARD therapy. In the combination therapy in early RA (COBRA) study, patients with newly diagnosed RA treated with glucocorticoid (starting with 60 mg/day, quickly reduced to 7.5 mg/day for weeks 7-28 and subsequently stopped), MTX up to week 40 and SSZ showed significantly decreased radiographic progression compared with those treated with SSZ alone. The benefits of short-term combination therapy on disease progression were still apparent at 5-year and 11-year follow-up. In conclusion, there is clear evidence that treatment regimens including low-dose glucocorticoids given early in RA slow radiographic progression, meeting the definition of a DMARD. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that such treatment strategies favourably alter the disease course even after glucocorticoid discontinuation.     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate in Congolese patients

Methotrexate (MTX) is the anchor drug in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but data concerning the effectiveness of treatment with this compound are lacking in the Congolese population. In the present study, the evolution of RA in Congolese patients on MTX treatment is reported from before disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) initiation till 20 months later. All consecutive DMARD-naïve RA patients (ACR 1987 criteria) attending the rheumatology unit of the University Hospital of Kinshasa from January 2008 to September 2010 were included. All were treated with MTX (started at 7.5 mg/week) and bridging steroids (started at 30mg/day). Treatment adaptations of MTX and concomitant drugs are reported as well as evolution of disease activity (DAS28-ESR), functionality (Health Assessment Questionnaire), radiological damage, and safety over 20 months. Of 98 patients recruited, more than one third were lost at follow-up. A follow-up visit at 20 months was available for 51 patients. These 48 women and 3 men had a mean age of 51.2?±?13 years and a mean delay from symptom onset till their first visit of 3.2 years. At 20 months, the average MTX dose was 9.7 mg weekly. A second DMARD was added in three patients. The average dose of prednisone at 20 months was 7.5 mg daily. A significant improvement of DAS28 and functional disability was observed and 35.3 % of patients entered remission (DAS28 <2.6). A progression of X-ray damage was observed in one third of patients. Two patients had to stop MTX because of severe side effects and two patients developed diabetes. Methotrexate and bridging steroids therapy is effective also in sub-Saharan Africa but the average weekly MTX dose remains low. Implementation of a regular follow-up is a major issue.     

Lessons for the use of non-biologic anchor treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in the era of biologic therapies

Optimizing the use of key non-biologic drugs (MTX, prednisone) may prolong disease control, thereby delaying the need for costly biologic therapies. A number of lessons about the optimal use of therapy emerge from clinical studies. Clinical outcomes with non-biologic treatments, given early in the course of the disease, are as good as with biologic treatments. Combinations of treatments are usually required to achieve rapid and sustained remission. MTX remains an important anchor drug for RA therapy and should be given as soon as the diagnosis is made. As early disease control is important, the dose of MTX should be escalated rapidly to adequate levels. Tolerability of MTX is generally good relative to that of other alternative treatments. MTX (s.c.) may be considered if the response to oral MTX is inadequate or MTX is poorly tolerated. In addition to suppressing signs and symptoms of RA, glucocorticoids appear to have disease-modifying effects, at least in early RA. The disease-modifying effects of glucocorticoids probably persist after discontinuation of therapy. The risk of adverse effects of low-dose glucocorticoids is often overestimated. Administration of low-dose glucocorticoids in accordance with physiological circadian rhythms may bring efficacy and safety benefits. As a case in point, the CAMERA (Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) II study applied these lessons and has clearly shown the benefits of optimizing MTX and prednisone therapy.     

Comparison of the response to infliximab or etanercept monotherapy with the response to cotherapy with methotrexate or another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcome at 6 months in unselected "real-world" patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with etanercept or infliximab as either monotherapy, cotherapy with methotrexate (MTX), or cotherapy with another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). METHODS: A total of 2,711 subjects starting treatment with their first biologic agent (1,453 infliximab and 1,258 etanercept) were followed up for 6 months. Outcome was assessed using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria. Ordinal regression was used to model the response in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups relative to the monotherapy group separately for the 2 anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents, after adjusting for baseline differences. RESULTS: Etanercept-treated patients had an increased likelihood of achieving a higher EULAR response category with cotherapy with MTX (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.5-2.7) and with another DMARD (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.6) as compared with monotherapy. For infliximab-treated patients, the likelihoods were 1.4 (95% CI 0.9-2.0) for MTX and 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.1) for other DMARDs versus monotherapy. Cotherapy with MTX or another DMARD produced significantly higher rates of remission with etanercept (12% and 11%, respectively) as compared with etanercept monotherapy (5%). Infliximab-treated patients showed similar remission rates in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups (8% and 5%, respectively) as in the monotherapy group (7%). CONCLUSION: In this study of real-world patients, the use of MTX and, to a lesser extent, other DMARDs as cotherapy with etanercept was associated with a higher likelihood of response. Although the infliximab guidelines suggest that MTX be used as cotherapy, in clinical practice, both monotherapy and cotherapy with DMARDs other than MTX are used. These data suggest that either of the latter strategies may be useful in patients who are intolerant to MTX.     

Contemporary disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis in a US private practice: methotrexate as the anchor drug in 90% and new DMARD in 30% of patients

OBJECTIVE: To describe therapies with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and biological agents in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were receiving routine clinical care in 2001 in a private practice of 5 rheumatologists in Nashville, TN, USA. METHODS: A cohort of 232 patients with initial symptoms of RA in 1998 or later were enrolled between February and October 2001 into a longterm observational study, designed to evaluate treatments and longterm outcomes of RA. The baseline evaluation included review of all DMARD that had been taken since disease onset, clinical measures on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire, joint counts, and laboratory measures. RESULTS: Among the 232 patients, methotrexate (MTX) was the first DMARD used in 192 patients (82.8%), including 3 in combinations. Since initiation of the first DMARD to the study visit, over a median interval of 12.1 months, 125 (66.1%) patients of the 189 whose initial DMARD was MTX as a single DMARD continued MTX as a single DMARD, 43 (22.8%) had another DMARD or biological agent added in combination with MTX, and 21 (11.1%) discontinued MTX. Since the onset of RA, 89.2% of the patients had taken MTX, 15.9% hydroxychloroquine, 3.9% sulfasalazine, 22.0% leflunomide, 9.5% etanercept, 4.3 infliximab, and 87.0% prednisone. CONCLUSION: After a median duration of 12.1 months of DMARD therapy, almost 90% of patients with recent onset RA took MTX as the anchor drug. More than 60% took MTX as a single DMARD or in combination with traditional DMARD, while 30% took leflunomide, etanercept, or infliximab, usually in combination with MTX.     

Management of rheumatoid arthritis: consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology

Given the recent availability of novel biologic agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology has developed consensus recommendations on the management of RA, which aim at providing guidance to local physicians on appropriate, literature-based management of this condition, specifically on the indications and monitoring of the biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The recommendations were developed using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of early arthritis as a guide, along with local expert opinion. As significant joint damage occurs early in the course of RA, initiating therapy early is key to minimizing further damage and disability. Patients with serious disease or poor prognosis should receive early, aggressive therapy. Because of its good efficacy and safety profile, methotrexate is considered the standard first-line DMARD for most treatment-naïve RA patients. Patients with a suboptimal response to methotrexate monotherapy should receive step-up (combination) therapy with either the synthetic or biologic DMARDs. In recent years, combinations of methotrexate with tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab have emerged as effective therapies in patients who are unresponsive to traditional DMARDs or the anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents. As biologic agents can increase the risk of infections such as tuberculosis and reactivation of viral hepatitis, screening for the presence of latent tuberculosis and chronic viral hepatitis carrier state is recommended before initiating therapy.     

Therapeutic strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy rests primarily on the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). It has been unequivocally shown that DMARD therapy early in the course of RA retards progression of damage and disability to a larger degree compared with delayed institution; the most effective DMARD is methotrexate (MTX). Moreover, combination therapy including intermediate to high doses of glucocorticoids and combinations of MTX with tumour necrosis factor blockers are more effective than monotherapies. However, early DMARD treatment requires early referral of patients and early diagnosis. This is hampered by the current lack of classification criteria for early RA, since the aim is to prevent destruction from occurring, while RA is typically characterized by the presence of erosions. Novel treatment strategies and therapeutic agents allow us to aim for remission rather than improvement of disease activity. Whether a 'window of opportunity' exists during which effective therapy might lead to cure is still an open issue and will be the focus of clinical trials in the near future.     

Treatment of early RA in clinical practice: a comparative study of two different DMARD/corticosteroid options

OBJECTIVES: To study the outcome in clinical practice of first DMARD and/or corticosteroid (CS) treatment in patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS: 245 patients with active RA, not previously treated with DMARDs or CS, were randomised to one of two treatment groups, T1 = 7.5-15 mg of prednisolone (PRE) daily for one to three months followed, if needed, by methotrexate (MTX) in a weekly dose of 5-15 mg in addition to the lowest possible dose of PRE or T2 = sulfasalazine (SAL), supplemented with lowest possible CS dose if needed. METHODS: The EULAR individual response criteria were applied and remission was defined as a final DAS28 < 2.6. Function was assessed by the HAQ and radiographic progression by Larsen scores. A patient who managed to remain on the allocated treatment for two years was described as a "completer". RESULTS: After 2 years of treatment, 70% of the patients in T1 and 63% in T2 were responders (30% and 33% "good responders", respectively). In T1 29% and in T2 19% were in remission. There was a significant functional improvement in both groups but radiographic progression occurred. The mean decrease in HAQ and increase in the Larsen score were similar in the two groups. One-third of the patients were non-completers, 19% from T1 and 47% from T2. Non-completers had, compared with completers, a significantly lower rate of individual response and remission. Completers and non-completers had similar functional improvement and similar radiological progression. CONCLUSIONS: Individual response and remission was reduced in patients who did not complete their first DMARD/CS treatment option. Treatment failures were significantly more frequent in the sulfasalazine plus optional CS than in the CS plus optional methotrexate treatment group.     

Step-up combination versus switching of non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) frequently needs to be changed because of insufficient effectiveness. AIM: To compare the clinical outcomes of two potential strategies for patients experiencing DMARD discontinuations related to ineffectiveness: switching to another DMARD or step-up combination therapy of the present DMARD with a new one. METHODS: In a large observational database of 4585 DMARD courses in 1214 patients with RA, all patients who had experienced a change in treatment regimen were identified, and retention, effectiveness and safety of these subsequent treatment courses between the two strategies (switching vs step-up combination). All analyses were stratified according to the type of the new DMARD into methotrexate (MTX), sulphasalazine (SSZ) or leflunomide (LEF); all other DMARDs were excluded. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis for MTX courses showed no significant difference in overall retention rates between the strategies of adding MTX and switching to MTX (p = 0.49 by log rank test). Likewise, switching or adding did not result in significantly different retention rates for SSZ and LEF (p = 0.61 and 0.74, respectively). This similarity between strategies remained after adjusting for several confounding variables. The frequencies of treatment terminations related to ineffectiveness or toxicity were likewise similar between the two strategies for the MTX, SSZ and LEF groups. This was also confirmed by the similarity of erythrocyte sedimentation rates that were reached at the end of the two therapeutic strategies for all three drugs, in adjusted analysis. CONCLUSION: Given all limitations of observational studies, the present data indicate that in situations of ineffective DMARD treatments, step-up combination therapy using traditional DMARDs, such as MTX, SSZ or LEF, bears no clear clinical advantage over switching to the new DMARD. Our results do not implicate any predication about step-up design including biologicals, where the benefit of combination therapy has been suggested convincingly.     

Comparison of the response to infliximab or etanercept monotherapy with the response to cotherapy with methotrexate or another disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

Objective

To compare outcome at 6 months in unselected “real‐world” patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with etanercept or infliximab as either monotherapy, cotherapy with methotrexate (MTX), or cotherapy with another disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).

Methods

A total of 2,711 subjects starting treatment with their first biologic agent (1,453 infliximab and 1,258 etanercept) were followed up for 6 months. Outcome was assessed using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria. Ordinal regression was used to model the response in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups relative to the monotherapy group separately for the 2 anti–tumor necrosis factor α agents, after adjusting for baseline differences.

Results

Etanercept‐treated patients had an increased likelihood of achieving a higher EULAR response category with cotherapy with MTX (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.5–2.7) and with another DMARD (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9–1.6) as compared with monotherapy. For infliximab‐treated patients, the likelihoods were 1.4 (95% CI 0.9–2.0) for MTX and 1.3 (95% CI 0.8–2.1) for other DMARDs versus monotherapy. Cotherapy with MTX or another DMARD produced significantly higher rates of remission with etanercept (12% and 11%, respectively) as compared with etanercept monotherapy (5%). Infliximab‐treated patients showed similar remission rates in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups (8% and 5%, respectively) as in the monotherapy group (7%).

Conclusion

In this study of real‐world patients, the use of MTX and, to a lesser extent, other DMARDs as cotherapy with etanercept was associated with a higher likelihood of response. Although the infliximab guidelines suggest that MTX be used as cotherapy, in clinical practice, both monotherapy and cotherapy with DMARDs other than MTX are used. These data suggest that either of the latter strategies may be useful in patients who are intolerant to MTX.

     

Use and effectiveness of tocilizumab among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for rheumatoid arthritis

The aims of the present study are to describe the characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients selected for tocilizumab (TCZ), compare the “real-world” effectiveness of TCZ and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when used as a first biologic and assess the influence of past biologic exposure/concurrent methotrexate (MTX) therapy on post-TCZ treatment outcomes. The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR-RA) is a prospective cohort study following RA patients starting biologics in the UK. This includes patients starting TCZ as first or subsequent biologic, alongside biologic-naïve patients starting TNFi. Six-month disease activity and 1-year drug survival were compared between biologic-naïve patients starting TCZ versus TNFi and first-line versus subsequent TCZ users and TCZ users with MTX versus without using regression models adjusted by propensity score. Two hundred seventeen patients started TCZ, and 2419 started TNFi as first biologic. Seven hundred seventy-seven started TCZ after other biologics. First-line TCZ users had a higher prevalence of pulmonary fibrosis and cancer history than TNFi users. The first-line TCZ users were more likely to achieve DAS28 remission at 6 months than first-line TNFi, but other improvement markers were similar. The treatment response at 6 months was similar between subsequent-line TCZ users and first-line users after adjusting for baseline patient differences. Concurrent MTX use was not associated with treatment response in either first- or subsequent-line TCZ users. TCZ has been primarily used as subsequent-line biologic in the UK. When used as first line, the response appears similar to that observed in patients starting TNFi, suggesting that clinical response alone should not decide between initial biologic therapies.     

Choice of second‐line disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs after failure of methotrexate therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: A decision tree for clinical practice based on rheumatologists' preferences

Objective

To survey rheumatologists' preferences for the choice of a second‐line disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) after inadequate response with methotrexate (MTX) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Thirty‐six rheumatologists stated their preferences for RA treatment after inadequate response with MTX therapy (optimal dose at least 6 months). From the initial scenario, we derived 54 vignettes varying by rheumatoid factor or anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody presence, swollen joint count, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and structural damage. Respondents stated their preference among 5 therapeutic options: MTX continuation, switch to another conventional DMARD, addition of another conventional DMARD, addition of anakinra, or addition of a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker. Presentation by pairs yielded 10 combinations of strategies for each variant, totaling 540 vignettes; participants evaluated a random sample of 180 vignettes. Determinants of each top‐ranked option were analyzed by logistic regression. The compilation of these data served to define a therapeutic algorithm.

Results

The responses of 33 rheumatologists were analyzable. Therapeutic preferences corresponded to the top‐ranked options. For patients with mild or moderately active RA, either a switch or step‐up strategy to another conventional DMARD was top ranked. TNF blockers were preferred for RA patients with high disease activity or progressive structural damage. On the basis of these preferences, we developed a simple decision tree for use in daily clinical practice.

Conclusion

Our simple, easy‐to‐use decision tree developed from rheumatologists' preferences for therapy after failure of MTX therapy in RA treatment may guide rheumatologists in daily practice to choose a second‐line DMARD.     

Response-driven combination therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can achieve high response rates in early rheumatoid arthritis with minimal glucocorticoid and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of combination therapy in recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with dose adjustments determined by response, in a clinic setting over 3 years. METHODS: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with RA of median duration of 12 weeks (n = 61) attending an early arthritis clinic were treated with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and fish oil. Dosage adjustments and additions of further DMARDs were contingent on response to therapy and tolerance. Outcome measures for efficacy were Disease Activity Score (DAS28), clinical remission, and modified Sharp radiographic score and for safety, adverse events, and DMARD withdrawal. RESULTS: At baseline, subjects had at least moderately active disease (mean +/- SD DAS28 was 5.3 +/- 1.1), impaired function as measured by the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) (0.9 +/- 0.5), and 37% had bone erosions. By 3 months, 29% were in remission; this increased to 54% at 3 years. The greatest fall in DAS28 and improvement in mHAQ scores occurred in the first 12 months. Erosions were detected in 62% at 3 years. The mean dose of parenteral glucocorticoid was equivalent to 0.1 mg/d of prednisolone. After 3 years, 48% remained on triple therapy; fish oil was consumed by 75% of patients, and 21% used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Gastrointestinal intolerance was the most frequent unwanted event (leading to DMARD withdrawal in 17 patients). Sulfasalazine was most frequently withdrawn (30%). CONCLUSION: This implementation study demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of combination therapy with inexpensive DMARDs, fish oil, and minimal glucocorticoid use, in routine clinical practice using predefined rules for dosage adjustment.     

Wie früh würden wir Biologika wirklich einsetzen?

According to a survey carried out during the annual congress of the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) last year, many rheumatologists would like to initiate TNF-alpha inhibitors earlier than suggested in the EULAR recommendations. While most of the survey participants agreed with the initial MTX monotherapy favored therein, more than half would prefer to combine MTX with a biologic instead of a second DMARD after failure of this option. This decision seems to be based mainly on clinical experience. Although international therapy guidelines allow an earlier use of biologic therapy in special cases, particularly in Germany an extensive documentation and justification is needed for this treatment strategy. Future guidelines may allow several parallel drug sequences based on prognostic factors and individual biomarkers.     

Early rheumatoid arthritis: strategies for prevention and management

The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has changed considerably in the past few years since new tools and new concepts have been developed and validated highlighting the need for guidelines focused on early RA. The treatment goal should now be to achieve clinical remission, in order to prevent structural damage and long-term disability. A very early use of effective disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is a key point in patients at risk of developing persistent and erosive arthritis. Intensive treatment such as combination DMARDs plus steroids or biological therapies can induce a high rate of remission, control of radiological progression and provide better outcome than DMARD monotherapy in early RA and should be considered in at risk patients. Regarding the risk:benefit ratio and the cost-effectiveness of these strategies, a reasonable course of action in early RA should be initial DMARD monotherapy such as methotrexate. However, a close monitoring of disease activity and radiographic progression is mandatory in order to change DMARD therapy and strategy if necessary. Systemic glucocorticoids are effective in the short-term relief of pain and swelling and should be considered, but mainly as a temporary therapy part of the DMARD strategy. Information and education for patients, as well as some non-pharmacological interventions, can be proposed as treatment adjuncts. Finally, the reduction or stopping of smoking, which could prevent the development and progression of early RA, is the only prevention tool currently available.     

Glucocorticoid receptor up-regulation in early rheumatoid arthritis treated with low dose prednisone or placebo

OBJECTIVE: Low or medium dose prednisone in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), albeit with significant variation in clinical efficacy, reduces the progression of joint damage. The glucocorticoid receptor (GR) number in peripheral mononuclear cells (PBMC) might be helpful to predict which patients will respond to low or medium dose prednisone and therefore do not or will not need higher doses. With this in mind we determined in a double blind, placebo controlled study at baseline and yearly the GR number in PBMC. METHODS: Eighty-one early RA patients (disease duration less than one year) were included. All patients fulfilled the ACR criteria and were disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and glucocorticoid-naive. They were randomly assigned to treatment with 10 mg prednisone daily or placebo. From all patients disease activity (CRP, number of tender and swollen joints), the radiological joint score, bone mineral density, and the GR number in PBMC were measured annually. RESULTS: In females the GR number was up-regulated over time in both the prednisone and the placebo group. The same trend was observed in males. No correlations were found between the GR number in the prednisone users at the start of their treatment and changes in radiological scores or bone density after 2 years of treatment. No correlations were found between the GR number at the start and the clinical characteristics after a follow-up of 2 years. CONCLUSION: The GR number in the PBMC of early RA patients did not predict which patients would be prednisone responders based on clinical or radiological parameters. However, the up-regulation of the GR number in PBMC in early RA patients towards the GR number of healthy subjects during the first two years of their disease course seems to reflect a recovery or compensatory mechanism as a response to an ongoing inflammatory process. This recovery may be not enough to efficiently control the inflammatory situation.     

Daily practice effectiveness of a step-down treatment in comparison with a tight step-up for early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To study prospectively the daily practice effectiveness of a step-down early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment strategy. METHODS: Patients with severe RA and no contra-indications were proposed step-down therapy, the others step-up. Step-down patients received a modified combination therapy in early RA (COBRA) regimen: sulphasalazine (SPS), 2 g daily, and methotrexate (MTX), 15 mg weekly, combined with step-down oral prednisolone (start 60 mg daily, fast tapering to 7.5 mg over 6 weeks, discontinuation from week 28). At week 40, patients were randomized to maintenance therapy with either SPS or MTX if disease activity score-28 (DAS28) was acceptably low. The step-up group started disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy. In both groups, treatment was adjusted at follow-up, based on DAS28. DAS28, functionality Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), adverse events, DMARD changes and steroid use were registered 4-monthly for 2 yrs. RESULTS: Nineteen patients received step-down and 52 step-up treatment. More patients completed the first year without unplanned DMARD changes and without dosage adjustment and fewer had DMARD changes due to side effects or inefficacy in the step-down group compared with step-up, whereas the number of adverse events was comparable. MTX proved to be the most effective maintenance therapy after step-down. The DAS response, proportion of patients in remission, HAQ response and proportion of patients without disability at 4 months was higher in the step-down group. CONCLUSIONS: In daily practice, a step-down treatment strategy for early RA is more effective than a step-up approach.