OBJECTIVE\nTo determine whether a multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score predicts radiographic damage progression in the subsequent year in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.\nMETHODS... Show moreOBJECTIVE\nTo determine whether a multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score predicts radiographic damage progression in the subsequent year in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.\nMETHODS\nThere were 180 serum samples available in the BeSt study (trial numbers NTR262, NTR 265): 91 at baseline (84 with radiographs available) and 89 at 1-year followup (81 with radiographs available). Radiographs were assessed using the Sharp/van der Heijde Score (SvdH). Twelve serum biomarkers were measured to determine MBDA scores using a validated algorithm. Receiver-operating curves and Poisson regression analyses were performed, with Disease Activity Score (DAS) and MBDA score as independent variables, and radiographic progression as dependent variable.\nRESULTS\nAt baseline, MBDA scores discriminated more between patients who developed radiographic progression (increase in SvdH ≥ 5 points) and patients who did not [area under the curve (AUC) 0.767, 95% CI 0.639-0.896] than did DAS (AUC 0.521, 95% CI 0.358-0.684). At 1 year, MBDA score had an AUC of 0.691 (95% CI 0.453-0.929) and DAS had an AUC of 0.649 (95% CI 0.417-0.880). Adjusted for anticitrullinated protein antibody status and DAS, higher MBDA scores were associated with an increased risk for SvdH progression [relative risk (RR) 1.039, 95% CI 1.018-1.059 for baseline MBDA score; 1.037, 95% CI 1.009-1.065 for Year 1 MBDA score]. Categorized high MBDA scores were also correlated with SvdH progression (RR for high MBDA score at baseline 3.7; low or moderate MBDA score as reference). At 1 year, high MBDA score gave a RR of 4.6 compared to low MBDA score.\nCONCLUSION\nMBDA scores predict radiographic damage progression at baseline and during disease course. Show less
Gvozdenovic, E.; Dirven, L.; Broek, M. van den; Han, K.H.; Molenaar, E.T.H.; Landewe, R.B.M.; ... ; Allaart, C.F. 2014
OBJECTIVES: Targeted treatment is effective in the short term in achieving low disease activity or even remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The benefits of long-term targeted... Show moreOBJECTIVES: Targeted treatment is effective in the short term in achieving low disease activity or even remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The benefits of long-term targeted treatment are discussed based on the BeSt study results. METHODS: The BeSt study has incorporated 7 years of targeted treatment, aiming at low disease activity (DAS =<2.4), and including both treatment intensification when DAS is high and treatment tapering and discontinuation if DAS is persistently low. Functional ability over time, (drug free) remission percentages, treatment adjustments and radiological outcomes over 7 years are discussed. RESULTS: Targeted treatment resulted in stabilisation of functional ability after initial improvement, minimal radiological damage progression after the first year, and tapering of medication. Drug free remission was achieved in 15% of completers in year 7. Patients who lost drug free remission (46% up to year 5) restarted treatment and mostly regained remission without radiological deterioration. Patients treated with initial combination therapy responded earlier and had less damage progression that remained evident up to five years follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Early and maintained targeted treatment has functional and radiological benefits over the first 7 years of the BeSt study and can include drug tapering and (partial, temporary or permanent) discontinuation. Show less
After achieving low disease activity or remission, biological therapy might be stopped in rheumatoid arthritis patients, but information on whether and how this should be done is scarce. Successful... Show moreAfter achieving low disease activity or remission, biological therapy might be stopped in rheumatoid arthritis patients, but information on whether and how this should be done is scarce. Successful discontinuation was highly variable since it was described in 0-97% of patients, in studies with different patient populations and follow-up durations between 12 weeks and over 7 years. In most studies, patients were required to have low disease activity or be in clinical remission for at least 6 months before biological therapy was discontinued. Significant joint damage progression in the first year after discontinuation was rare and functional ability was relatively stable in almost all patients in this year. In patients who had a disease flare, retreatment with biological therapy was successful in 70-100%. Mild infusion reactions after retreatment were described in a small number of patients. In conclusion, in the absence of a guideline for stopping biologicals in RA, we present a preliminary proposal that biological therapy can be stopped in many RA-patients after achieving low disease activity or remission for at least 6 months. Adequate monitoring of disease activity is essential, and retreatment appears to be safe and successful in many patients. Future research may further identify when and/or which patients are most likely to discontinue biological treatment successfully. Show less
