The number of risk factors for persistent disease determines the clinical course of early arthritis

Patient-reported outcomes and radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission versus low disease activity

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) over 5 years between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission (sREM), sustained low disease activity (sLDA) or active disease (AD) in the first year after diagnosis.

METHODS

All patients with RA from the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis CoHort trial, a multicentre, stratified, single-blinded trial with a treat-to-target approach, aiming for LDA (Disease Activity Score (DAS) ≤2.4), were studied. Patients were categorised into: (1) sREM (mean DAS from 6 to 12 months <1.6) (n=173); (2) sLDA (mean DAS from 6 to 12 months 1.6-2.4) (n=142); and (3) AD (mean DAS from 6 to 12 months >2.4) (n=59). Pain, fatigue, functional impairment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health status and productivity loss during 5 years were compared between groups. Radiographic progression (modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS)) was compared over 2 years.

RESULTS

Patients in sLDA in the first year had worse PROs during follow-up, compared with patients in sREM: pain (0-10 Likert) was 0.90 units higher (95% CI 0.52 to 1.27), fatigue (Visual Analogue Scale) was 12.10 units higher (95% CI 7.27 to 16.92), functional impairment (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) was 0.28 units higher (95% CI 0.17 to 0.39), physical HRQoL (36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary score) was 4.42 units lower (95% CI -6.39 to -2.45), mental HRQoL (SF-36 Mental Component Summary score (MCS)) was 2.95 units lower (95% CI -4.83 to -1.07), health status (European Quality of life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L)) was 0.06 units lower (95% CI -0.09 to -0.03) and productivity loss (0%-100%) was 7.76% higher (95% CI 2.76 to 12.75). Differences between the AD and sREM group were even larger, except for the SF-36 MCS and EQ-5D-3L. No differences in mTSS were found between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with RA who reach sREM in the first year have better HRQoL and function, and less pain, fatigue and productivity loss in the years thereafter, compared with patients with RA who are in sLDA or AD in the first year.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgotinib in Patients with High Risk of Poor Prognosis Who Showed Inadequate Response to MTX: A Post Hoc Analysis of the FINCH 1 Study

INTRODUCTION

This exploratory analysis of FINCH 1 (NCT02889796) examined filgotinib (FIL) efficacy and safety in a subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX; MTX-IR) who had four poor prognostic factors (PPFs).

METHODS

Patients with MTX-IR received placebo up to week (W)24 or FIL200 mg, FIL100 mg, or adalimumab up to W52; all received MTX. Efficacy and safety data were stratified by four PPFs versus fewer than four PPFs: seropositivity, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 6 mg/L, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with CRP > 5.1, and erosions on X-rays.

RESULTS

At baseline, 687/1755 patients had four PPFs. At W12, whether with four PPFs or fewer than four PPFs, response rates on all American College of Rheumatology (ACR) measures were significantly greater with FIL200 and FIL100 versus placebo. At W52, FIL200 ACR20/50/70 response rates remained at least numerically higher versus adalimumab in both subgroups. At W52, FIL200 reduced modified total Sharp score (mTSS) change versus adalimumab in patients with four or fewer than four PPFs.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk (four PPFs) patients with MTX-IR RA, FIL200 and FIL100 showed similar reductions in disease activity versus placebo at W12 as in patients with fewer than four PPFs. mTSS in patients receiving FIL200 changed little from W24 to W52, while that in patients receiving FIL100 progressed comparably to patients who received adalimumab. Tolerability was comparable across treatment arms and subgroups.

Possibilities for personalised medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: hype or hope

Knowledge of pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved over the past decades, which resulted in new treatment options and strategies that led to better clinical outcomes. At the same time, we have come to understand that RA is a heterogeneous disease on a clinical as well as a pathophysiological level. Despite this heterogeneity, current management recommendations still adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’ treatment approach, where ideally individualised treatment, or personalised medicine, is preferred. The first step towards personalised medicine in RA would be to designate different treatment strategies to distinct clinical or molecular phenotypes of patients. This viewpoint discusses current evidence and elaborates on future possibilities for personalised medicine in RA.