Search

Objective: To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA)., Methods: An EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members., Results: Two overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6)., Conclusions: These PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Participants provided declaration of interest, the individual declarations will be attached as online supplemental file., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Despite treatment according to the current management recommendations, a significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain symptomatic. These patients can be considered to have 'difficult-to-treat RA'. However, uniform terminology and an appropriate definition are lacking., Objective: The Task Force in charge of the " Development of EULAR recommendations for the comprehensive management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis" aims to create recommendations for this underserved patient group. Herein, we present the definition of difficult-to-treat RA, as the first step., Methods: The Steering Committee drafted a definition with suggested terminology based on an international survey among rheumatologists. This was discussed and amended by the Task Force, including rheumatologists, nurses, health professionals and patients, at a face-to-face meeting until sufficient agreement was reached (assessed through voting)., Results: The following three criteria were agreed by all Task Force members as mandatory elements of the definition of difficult-to-treat RA: (1) Treatment according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendation and failure of ≥2 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/targeted synthetic DMARDs (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated); (2) presence of at least one of the following: at least moderate disease activity; signs and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease; inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment; rapid radiographic progression; RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life; and (3) the management of signs and/or symptoms is perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient., Conclusions: The proposed EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat RA can be used in clinical practice, clinical trials and can form a basis for future research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All participants provided declaration of interest, the individual declarations are attached as online supplemental file 2., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: A competing interests statement of all authors is attached as online supplementary material., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: To explore patterns of real-world early RA (ERA) care across countries., Methods: An online survey was disseminated to practising rheumatologists across Europe and the US, also made accessible on social media between April and May 2015. Survey questions (n=38) assessed the structure and setting of ERA clinics, times to diagnosis and treatment, patient monitoring, guideline use and data recording., Results: A total of 212 rheumatologists from 39 countries (76% European) completed the survey. 62% had an ERA clinic based at a university hospital. Patient referral to rheumatology was mainly (78%) via primary care; 44% had an agreed ERA local referral pathway, 15% a national pathway. Only 16% had dedicated ERA clinics, the majority being practitioners in Northern Europe with access to a local or national referral pathway. Data for research were collected by 42%. Treatment guidelines were followed by the majority, especially rheumatologists practising in Europe. Variations existed in the use of initial DMARDs with treatment decisions reported to be influenced by international/national guidelines in 71%/61%. No significant relationship between country gross national income and the availability of ERA clinics was seen., Conclusions: This study provides comparative benchmark information regarding the global provision of ERA care. Substantial variations exist in referral and early assessment pathways with guidelines having a most apparent impact in Northern Europe. Provision of an ERA service does not appear to be constrained by cost, with conceptual factors, e.g. clinician engagement, perhaps playing a role. These initial insights could potentially help harmonise ERA management across countries.

Background: Treat to target (T2T) is widely accepted as the standard of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and has been shown to be more effective than traditional routine care. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two T2T strategies in patients with early RA: a step-up approach starting with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy (cohort I) versus an initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug combination approach (cohort II)., Methods: A total of 128 patients from cohort II were case-control-matched with 128 patients from cohort I on gender, age, and baseline disease activity. Twelve-month follow-up data were available for 121 patients in both cohorts. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients having reached at least one 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) score <2.6 (remission) during 12 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were time until remission was achieved and mean DAS28 scores at 6- and 12-month follow-up., Results: After 12 months of follow-up, remission was reached at least once in 77.3 % of the patients in cohort II versus 71.9 % in cohort I (P = 0.31). Median time until first remission was 17 weeks in cohort II versus 27 weeks in cohort I (P = 0.04). A significant time by strategy interaction was found in mean DAS28 scores. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference in mean DAS28 scores between both cohorts at 6 months (P = 0.04), but not at 12 months (P = 0.36)., Conclusions: The initial combination strategy resulted in a comparable remission rate after 1 year but a significantly shorter time until remission. At 6 months, mean DAS28 scores were lower in patients with initial combination treatment than in those with step-up therapy. At 12 months, no significant differences remained in mean DAS28 scores or the proportion of patients in remission.

Objective: Treat-to-target (T2T) leads to improved clinical outcomes in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The question is whether these results sustain in the long term. Our objective was to investigate the 3-year results of a protocolized T2T strategy in daily clinical practice., Methods: In the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring remission induction cohort, patients newly diagnosed with RA were treated according to a T2T strategy aimed at remission (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] <2.6). Patients were treated with methotrexate, followed by the addition of sulfasalazine, and exchange of sulfasalazine with anti-tumor necrosis factor α agents in case of failure. Primary outcomes were disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, Short Form 36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores, and the Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) after 3 years. Secondary outcomes were sustained DAS28 remission (≥6 months) and remission according to the provisional American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) definition., Results: After 3 years (n = 342), 61.7% of patients were in DAS28 remission and 25.3% met the provisional ACR/EULAR definition of remission. Sustained remission was experienced by 70.5%, which in the majority was achieved with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only. The median scores were 0.4 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.0-1.0) for the HAQ, 45.0 (IQR 38.4-53.2) for the PCS, 53.1 (IQR 43.2-60.8) for the MCS, and 6.0 (IQR 3.0-13.0) for the total SHS., Conclusion: In very early RA, T2T leads to high (sustained) remission rates, improved physical function and health-related quality of life, and limited radiographic damage after 3 years in daily clinical practice., (Copyright © 2013 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: Fatigue is experienced frequently by patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Fatigue may be caused by high levels of pain and disease activity in RA but can remain present while disease activity is moderate to low. It is not clear whether RA patients receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) treatment reach lower levels of acute fatigue than RA patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment. The aim of our study was to analyse whether, in patients with RA, the effect of anti-TNF on fatigue is greater than the effect of DMARD treatment., Method: Sixty-seven RA patients receiving anti-TNF treatment and 104 RA patients receiving DMARDs were included. All patients were on stable treatment for at least 6 months prior to baseline measurement. Fatigue was measured monthly over 1 year with the fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-fatigue). The association between persistent severe fatigue and medication group was analysed using multiple linear regression including confounders., Results: In the anti-TNF group the mean (SD) level of persistent fatigue was significantly higher than in the DMARD group [32.2 (11.4) vs. 28.3 (10.9), p = 0.025] and more patients experienced persistent severe (CIS-fatigue score ≥ 35) fatigue (42% and 27% respectively, p = 0.043). However, when correcting for age, disease activity, haemoglobin, treatment duration, pain, physical disability, and clinical depression, medication type seemed to influence neither the mean level of persistent fatigue (p = 0.251) nor the percentage of patients with persistent severe fatigue (p = 0.745)., Conclusions: When taking into account probable confounders including disease activity, medication type did not influence persistent fatigue in RA patients. It seems that, besides its anti-inflammatory effect, anti-TNF has no complementary effect on persistent fatigue.

RA is defined by the interrelated triad of disease activity, joint damage and disability. Although disease activity and its associated disability are reversible, joint damage and its associated disability are not. Thus, an important goal of RA therapy is to maximally reduce disease activity and thereby mitigate the accumulation of irreversible joint damage. Treatment for patients with RA should be initiated early and aggressively, with frequent assessments and a goal of achieving remission as quickly as possible after treatment initiation. We propose a treatment algorithm that recommends early and aggressive therapy with high-dose MTX therapy (15-25 mg/week), which may include moderate doses of glucocorticoids. The goal is to achieve low disease activity (determined by a composite measure that includes joint counts) within 3-6 months. If low disease activity is not achieved by 6 months, another conventional DMARD or a biologic agent should be added to the treatment regimen or patients should be switched to another DMARD plus a glucocorticoid. Once low disease activity is achieved, the treatment goal for the ensuing 3-6 months becomes disease remission.

Unlabelled: There is strong evidence from clinical trials that a 'treat to target' strategy is effective in reaching remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the question is whether these results can be translated into daily clinical practice and clinical remission is a reachable target indeed., Objective: The study aims to investigate whether in early RA a treatment strategy aiming at Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 <2.6 is more effective than 'usual care' treatment for reaching clinical remission after 1 year., Methods: Two early RA inception cohorts from two different regions including patients who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA were compared. Patients in the tight-control cohort (n=126) were treated according to a DAS28-driven step-up treatment strategy starting with methotrexate, addition of sulphasalazine (SSZ) and exchange of SSZ by anti-tumour necrosis factor in case of failure. Patients in the usual-care cohort (n=126) were treated with methotrexate or SSZ, without DAS28-guided treatment decisions. The primary outcome was the percentage remission (DAS28<2.6) at 1 year. Time to first remission and change in DAS28 were secondary outcomes., Results: After 1 year, 55% of tight-control patients had a DAS28<2.6 versus 30% of usual care patients (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.2). The median time to first remission was 25 weeks for tight control and more than 52 weeks for usual care (p<0.0001). The DAS28 decreased with -2.5 in tight control and -1.5 in usual care (p<0.0001)., Conclusion: In early RA, a tight control treatment strategy aiming for remission leads to more rapid DAS28 remission and higher percentages of remission after 1 year than does a usual care treatment.

Objective: Antirheumatic treatment is frequently not appropriately modified, according to American College of Rheumatology guidelines, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as defined by a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score greater than 3.2. The objective of this study was to determine which factors most strongly influence patients' and rheumatologists' decisions to escalate care., Methods: We administered a Maximum Difference Scaling survey to 106 rheumatologists and 213 patients with RA. The survey included 58 factors related to the decision to escalate care in RA. Participants answered 24 choice tasks. In each task, participants were asked to choose the most important factor from a set of 5. We used hierarchical Bayes modeling to generate the mean relative importance score (RIS) for each factor., Results: For rheumatologists, the 5 most influential factors were number of swollen joints (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.4), DAS28 score (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.5), physician global assessment of disease activity (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.6), worsening erosions over the last year (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.5), and RA disease activity now compared to 3 months ago (mean ± SD RIS 5.1 ± 0.6). For patients, the 5 most important factors were current level of physical functioning (mean ± SD RIS 4.3 ± 1.1), motivation to get better (mean ± SD RIS 3.5 ± 1.4), trust in their rheumatologist (mean ± SD RIS 3.5 ± 1.6), satisfaction with current disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (mean ± SD RIS 3.4 ± 1.4), and current number of painful joints (mean ± SD RIS 3.4 ± 1.4)., Conclusion: Factors influencing the decision to escalate care differ between rheumatologists and patients. Better communication between patients and their physicians may improve treatment planning in RA patients with active disease., (Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: We have developed an instrument that provides the physician structured information about medication use and patients' (non-)adherence. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of this instrument on adherence and medication beliefs in outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: In this within-subject controlled prospective cohort study, 50 outpatients were assessed during three consecutive visits to their rheumatologist. At these three points in time, patients' adherence, medication beliefs, satisfaction about information about medication, and physical functioning were measured using validated self-report questionnaires. An intervention was scheduled during the second visit. The intervention consisted of a written report informing the physician about medication use and adherence to medication for each patient. The effectiveness of the intervention was evaluated by comparing outcome measures at the third visit to the same measures assessed prior to the intervention., Results: At baseline, 30% of the patients (n = 50) were non-adherent. No significant changes in adherence were found between the first and second visit prior to the intervention. Adherence did not change after the intervention, compared to both of the adherence assessments prior to the intervention. Beliefs about medication, patients' satisfaction about information on medication, and physical functioning were also not significantly altered., Conclusion: Supplying the rheumatologist a report with information about medication use and adherence did not change adherence or patients' beliefs about medication. Further research is necessary to ensure effective support for adherence for individual patients with RA.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore whether Bayesian reasoning can be applied to therapeutic questions in a way that is similar to its application in diagnostics., Methods: A clinically relevant, therapeutic question was formulated in accordance with Bayesian reasoning for the clinical management of patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Prior probability estimates of response to drug treatment (methotrexate, MTX) were obtained from the literature. As a marker of treatment response, changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were assessed after three months of treatment. Likelihood ratios for this marker were calculated on the basis of data from a clinical registry, using changes in the Disease Activity Score (DAS) as gold standard. Using Bayes' theorem, prior probability and likelihood ratios were combined to estimate posterior probabilities of treatment response in individual patients., Results: On the basis of the literature, the prior probability of response of RA patients to MTX was estimated 45 percent. At 3 months follow-up, this probability increased to 80 percent or decreased to 23 percent, depending on the changes that were observed in Health Assessment Questionnaire scores., Conclusions: Bayesian reasoning can be applied to therapeutic issues in a way that is conceptually fully compatible with its use in diagnostics. As such, it can be used to bridge the gap between aggregate data and individual patient management.

Objective: To describe the frequency and effectiveness of dose increase of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice., Methods: All RA patients with a dose increase of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-blocking therapy between January 1997 and January 2008 were selected from a register including data from RA patients starting a first TNF-blocking agent (the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring registry). The primary outcome was change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) at 3 months after dose increase. Secondary outcomes were the change in DAS28 at 6 months after dose increase, the European League Against Rheumatism response rates, and the percentages of patients reaching a DAS28 of ≤3.2 at 3 and at 6 months after dose increase. Furthermore, the effectiveness of dose increase was assessed for the different reasons for dose increase: nonresponse, loss of response, and partial response., Results: During the study period, the dose was increased in 44 (12%) of the 368 adalimumab patients, 32 (8%) of the 420 etanercept patients, and 115 (36%) of the 323 infliximab patients. The change in DAS28 at 3 months and 6 months after dose increase was limited and only significant in etanercept patients at 3 months (-0.51; P = 0.035). Disease activity decreased significantly at 3 months from dose increase in the nonresponders and patients with loss of response (-0.66 and -0.99, respectively; both P = 0.001), but not in the partial responders., Conclusion: Although dose increase was applied in all 3 TNF-blocking agents in daily clinical practice, these results suggest that the effectiveness of dose increase is limited.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-a first step in a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) initiative to produce recommendations for the management of RA., Methods: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library was performed up to January 2009. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy of synthetic DMARDs (vs placebo or other synthetic DMARDs) on signs and symptoms, disability and/or radiographic structural damage in patients with RA were selected. Studies of biological agents or glucocorticoids were excluded. A pooled effect size (ES) was calculated by meta-analysis. Safety and the occurrence of infections and neoplasia was also assessed., Results: 97 RCTs (14 159 patients) were analysed for efficacy. The pooled analysis indicated that methotrexate (MTX) was more efficacious in reducing signs and symptoms, disability and radiographic structural damage than other synthetic DMARDs pooled: ES for swollen joint count (SJC) versus pooled DMARDs=1.42 (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18). Leflunomide appeared to be as effective as MTX. Sulfasalazine and injectable gold were efficacious in reducing signs and symptoms and structural damage. Ciclosporin, minocycline, tacrolimus and hydroxychloroquine showed some efficacy in reducing SJC. Auranofin and D-penicillamine showed no significant superiority over placebo. The risks of cancer and of infection were increased with cyclophosphamide and azathioprine., Conclusions: MTX was well-tolerated and effective in reducing signs and symptoms, disability and structural damage. A comparison with other synthetic DMARDs was in favour of MTX, though at the tested doses MTX and leflunomide were equally effective.

Objectives: To assess the ability of efficacy measures that incorporate onset or sustainability to detect treatment effect or reflect patient satisfaction, using exploratory analyses of data from the ATTAIN (Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-TNF INadequate Responders) trial., Methods: 218 abatacept- and 99 placebo-treated patients were evaluated. Reporting methods included time to onset (first American College of Rheumatology [ACR] 50 response/Low Disease Activity State [LDAS; DAS28 < or =3.2]) and sustainability of ACR50/LDAS, both assessed according to discriminatory capacity (number of patients needed to study [NNS]) and patient satisfaction with treatment., Results: Efficacy measures incorporating elements of sustainability or onset decreased discriminatory capacity, while sustainability, but not onset of action, was important in reflecting patient satisfaction., Conclusions: Optimal assessment methods depend on whether the outcome of interest is ability to detect treatment effects or to reflect patient satisfaction. Sustainability of response (and possibly, at a lower magnitude, fast onset of action) may be important when evaluating patient satisfaction with RA therapies in patients who have previously failed anti-TNF therapy.

Objective: To investigate the influence of age on the effectiveness and tolerance of antitumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: 730 patients of the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) register were categorised into three groups according to their age at initiation of anti-TNFalpha therapy (<45, 45-65 and >65 years). Effectiveness of anti-TNFalpha therapy was primarily assessed by longitudinal analysis of the DAS28 during the first 12 months of treatment., Results: Improvement in disease activity and physical functioning was significantly less in elderly patients, correcting for relevant confounders. Elderly patients reached the EULAR categories of good responders and remission less often than younger patients. Drug survival, co-medication use and tolerance were comparable between the three age groups., Conclusion: Anti-TNFalpha therapy significantly reduced disease activity in all age groups of patients; however, it appeared less effective in elderly compared with younger RA patients.

Objective: To validate and compare the definition of the Disease Activity Score 28 based on C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) to the definition based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)., Methods: Data were analysed from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of abatacept of 6-month and 12-month duration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria and the proportion of patients in remission (DAS28 <2.6) based on the two DAS28 definitions were examined. Trends in radiographic progression (erosion score, joint space narrowing score and total score) and physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) across the EULAR responder states (none, moderate and good) were analysed., Results: There was general agreement in determining the EULAR responder state using both DAS28 definitions (kappa = 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83). Overall, there was 82.4% agreement on the EULAR response criteria; when disagreements occurred, the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often then DAS28 (ESR) (12.6% vs 4.9%, respectively). There was also agreement in determining remission: kappa = 0.69 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78). Radiographic progression decreased in patients treated with abatacept across EULAR states (from none to moderate to good) based on both definitions. For patients treated with placebo, the trend was not as pronounced, with radiographic scores higher for moderate vs non-responders. For physical function, similar trends were observed across the EULAR states for both DAS28 definitions., Conclusions: The DAS28 (CRP) has been validated against radiographic progression and physical function. While the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often than the DAS28 (ESR), the validation profile was similar to the DAS28 (ESR), indicating that both measures are useful for assessing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective: To study the adherence of rheumatologists to the Dutch guidelines for anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) treatment. The secondary objective was to evaluate alternatives to the present guidelines with regard to the percentage of responders and costs., Methods: The response (>1.2 DAS28 decrease) in patients who started on anti-TNF-alpha treatment for the first time was evaluated at 3 and 6 months after initiation. How many patients continued or discontinued their initial anti-TNF-alpha treatment was evaluated. Possible alternative guidelines were evaluated by means of a decision tree, with regard to the expected percentage of successfully (responders) and unsuccessfully treated patients and expected costs., Results: At 3 months 56% (N = 306) and 44% (N = 233) of all 539 evaluable patients were classified as responders or non-responders, respectively. Despite the guidelines, most (81%) (N = 189) of the non-responders continued treatment. 37% of the non-responders who continued anti-TNF-alpha treatment were eventually classified as responders at 6 months. Decision analytical modelling showed that with equal expected costs all alternative strategies would result in more responders than according to theoretical full adherence with the guidelines. "Continuation in case of partial response" had the best trade-off between successfully treated patients (64%) and unsuccessfully treated patients (17%)., Conclusion: There was suboptimal adherence to the Dutch guidelines for treatment with anti-TNF-alpha for rheumatoid arthritis patients. This seemed to be justified by the fact that a delayed response up to 6 months was shown. If treatment is continued despite a non-response at 3 months, this is only recommended in patients with at least a partial response (at least 0.6 DAS28 improvement).

Objective: High-density lipoprotein (HDL) antiatherogenic functions seem to be diminished during inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition on the antioxidative capacity of HDL in RA., Methods: Plasma lipids and paraoxonase (PON-1) activity were investigated in 45 RA patients, before and during 6 months of anti-TNF therapy. In addition, HDL was isolated and tested for its ability to inhibit copper-induced oxidation of low-density lipoprotein in vitro., Results: Plasma HDL concentrations did not change considerably after 6 months of therapy. However, stable increases of PON-1 activities were observed throughout the same period (p<0.03). The increases were more obvious when related to HDL or apolipoprotein AI concentrations. HDL total antioxidative capacity significantly improved 6 months after the initiation of anti-TNF therapy (p = 0.015). The initial improvement of PON-1 activity paralleled a decrease in the inflammatory status, whereas specific TNF blockade was likely to be responsible for the long-term effects., Conclusions: Anti-TNF therapy with infliximab has beneficial effects on lipids through changes in HDL antioxidative capacity, which might be clinically relevant and contribute to the reported protective effect of anti-TNF on cardiovascular morbidity in RA. This emphasises the importance of HDL antiatherogenic capacity for cardiovascular risk in chronic inflammatory conditions.

Objectives: To evaluate different methods of reporting response to treatment or disease status for their ability to discriminate between active therapy and placebo, or to reflect structural progression or patient satisfaction with treatment using an exploratory analysis of the Abatacept in Inadequate Responders to Methotrexate (AIM) trial., Methods: 424 active (abatacept approximately 10 mg/kg) and 214 placebo-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were evaluated., Method: of reporting included: (1) response (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria) versus state (disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) criteria); (2) stringency (ACR20 vs 50 vs 70; moderate disease activity state (MDAS; DAS28 <5.1) vs low disease activity state (LDAS; DAS28 or=2). More stringent criteria (at least ACR50/LDAS), faster onset (3 visits) of ACR50/LDAS best reflected patient satisfaction (positive LR >10)., Conclusions: The optimal method for reporting a measure of disease activity may differ depending on the outcome of interest. Time to onset and sustainability can be important factors when evaluating treatment response and disease status in patients with RA.

Treatment early in the course of the disease, along with early diagnosis, has a positive influence on clinical outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therapeutic strategies, including the use of 'disease-modifying antirheumatic drug' (DMARD) combinations, have proved effective, with relatively few side effects. New insights into the pathophysiology of RA have lead to the development of novel therapeutic agents that have been demonstrated to be highly effective. Patients should be monitored intensively with respect to the effect of therapy on reduction of disease activity, followed by modification of therapeutic strategy in the case of a suboptimal treatment response. Various non-pharmacological interventions, such as exercise therapy and patient education, are available to help patients to cope with the consequences of the disease. Optimizing treatment of RA by means of this approach will help to realize the goal of current therapy: to achieve and sustain remission and, thereby, an optimal functional level.

Objectives: In clinical trials only a small subset of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) benefits from higher than standard dose of infliximab (>3 mg/kg/8 weeks). However, dose escalation of infliximab is frequently applied in clinical practice. Individual adjustment of infliximab treatment based on actual disease activity, instead of subjective clinical judgement, could prevent possible unwarranted dose escalation., Methods: The infliximab dose of all patients with RA treated at our centre was decreased from 5 mg/kg to 3 mg/kg, leaving dosing intervals unaltered. Subsequently patients were followed for at least three infusions. At every visit, 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), infliximab serum trough levels and anti-infliximab antibody levels were assessed. Inversed European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria (flare criteria) were used as the endpoint., Results: A total of 18 patients were included in the study. Mean (SD) DAS28 scores before dose reduction and after first and second low dose were 3.2 (1.2), 3.2 (1.8) and 3.3 (1.2), respectively (values not significant). One patient (6%, 95% CI 0% to 17%) developed a persistent flare that subsided after increasing infliximab doses and one patient stopped infliximab because of a lupus-like reaction. In all other patients (n=16) lowering infliximab resulted in unaltered disease activity. Infliximab levels showed that most patients had either low- (<1 mg/litre) or high (>5 mg/litre) serum trough levels. Anti-infliximab antibodies were detected in four patients., Conclusion: Infliximab dosages of 5 mg/kg can be lowered in the majority of patients with RA using DAS28-guided dose titration without increase of disease activity. Lowering the dose of infliximab should be considered in every patient receiving higher doses infliximab.

Objective: To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)., Methods: The project followed the EULAR standardized operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: 1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); 2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and 3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007)., Results: Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature, the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: 1) disease activity response and disease activity states; 2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; 3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); 4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; 5) time to onset of the primary outcome; 6) sustainability of the primary outcome; 7) fatigue., Conclusion: These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonize the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.

Aim: to evaluate the effects of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab on disease activity, functional ability and quality of life and the medication costs in a naturalistic design., Methods: All patients from the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) register starting on tumour necrosis factor (TNF)alpha-blocking agents for the first time were monitored and assessed by trained research nurses every 3 months. The primary outcome was the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) course over the 12 months follow-up, analysed by linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes were the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), EuroQol five dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short-Form 36 items (SF36) scores, and medication-related total costs., Results: The DAS28 and SF-36 physical component scale decreased in all three medication groups over 12 months, but the decrease was larger for adalimumab and etanercept in comparison to infliximab (p<0.001). The analyses of the HAQ and the EQ-5D scores showed the same (non-significant) trend, namely that at 12 months, the functionality and quality of life was better for adalimumab and etanercept patients. With regard to the medication costs, infliximab treatment resulted in significantly higher costs over the follow-up period than treatments with either adalimumab or etanercept. The comparison between adalimumab and etanercept showed a significant difference in the 12-month DAS28 course (p = 0.031). There were no additional indications for differences in effectiveness or costs between adalimumab and etanercept., Conclusion: The evaluation of the effectiveness and costs showed that adalimumab and etanercept are more or less equal and favourable compared to infliximab in the first year of treatment.

Objectives: This study assessed the relative efficacy of etanercept (ETN) or etanercept and methotrexate (ETN+MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an unsatisfactory response to MTX, using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of function, pain, general health, disease activity and morning stiffness., Methods: The PROs were secondary assessments in a 16-week, prospective, randomised, parallel-group study conducted at 60 European centres. Patients with RA were randomly assigned either to monotherapy with ETN or combination therapy with ETN+MTX. PRO instruments administered included the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire, the pain visual analogue scale, the EuroQoL assessment of current health state (EQ-5D), the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, a patient global assessment of disease activity and an assessment of morning stiffness. Treatment groups were compared by percentage of patients within clinically meaningful categories. The primary endpoint for all PROs was comparison of mean improvement from baseline to week 16 between ETN and ETN+MTX groups., Results: Three hundred and fifteen patients were randomised to ETN or ETN+MTX. Both treatment arms had similar Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index DI, EQ-5D, patient global assessment of disease activity, pain or morning stiffness scores and improvement from baseline to week 16., Conclusions: For patients with active RA and intolerance or unsatisfactory response to MTX, substituting ETN for MTX and adding ETN to MTX are both effective ways of reducing disability, pain, disease activity, morning stiffness, and improving general health.

Objectives: To examine the psychometric properties of the self-administered Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) and its short form (RADAI-SF) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis starting anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment., Method: Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to test the single-factor structure. Construct validity was examined by correlating RADAI and RADAI-SF scores with Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). Internal responsiveness was evaluated with the paired t test and the standardised response mean (SRM). External responsiveness was assessed with receiver operating characteristic analysis and the SRM, using the EULAR response criterion as external criterion. Change scores were correlated with changes in DAS28., Results: At baseline and after 3 months' treatment, respectively, 191 and 171 patients completed the RADAI. The internal consistency of the RADAI and the RADAI-SF was satisfactory. CFAs confirmed the single-factor structure of both RADAI versions, but the short form provided the best model fit. Moderate correlations were found with the DAS28. SRMs of the RADAI and the RADAI-SF were, respectively, 0.76 and 0.80. Both versions had moderate accuracy to distinguish responders from non-responders. Changes scores were moderately correlated with DAS28 change scores., Conclusions: This study showed satisfactory psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the RADAI. Omission of the tender joint count (RADAI-SF) produced comparable results and is justified for research purposes. The tender joint count might be useful as additional clinical information in patient management.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of antagonists to tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) showed high response percentages in the groups treated with active drugs., Objective: To compare the efficacy of anti-TNF treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in RCTs and in daily clinical practice, with an emphasis on the efficacy for patients eligible and not eligible for RCTs of anti-TNF treatments., Methods: First, randomised placebo-controlled trials written in English for etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for patients with RA were selected by a systematic review. Second, the DREAM (Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring) register with patients starting for the first time on one of the TNF-blocking agents was used. Patient characteristics, doses of medication and co-medication as well as the ACR20 response percentages were compared between RCTs and DREAM data, stratified for trial eligibility., Results: In 10 of 11 comparisons, the ACR20 response percentages were lower in daily clinical practice than in the RCT active drug group, which was significant in five of 11 comparisons. Only 34-79% of DREAM patients fulfilled the selection criteria for disease activity in the several RCTs examined. DREAM patients eligible for RCTs had higher response percentages than ineligible DREAM patients. ACR20 response percentages of eligible DREAM patients were comparable with the ACR20 response percentages of the RCT active drug group in 10 of 11 comparisons., Conclusion: The efficacy of TNF-blocking agents in RCTs exceeded the efficacy of these drugs in clinical practice. However, in clinical practice more patients with lower disease activity were treated with TNF-blocking agents compared with those treated in RCTs. For daily practice patients who were eligible for RCTs, responses were more similar to responses reached in RCTs.

Objective: Although nodulosis is a common extraarticular manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis, accelerated pulmonary nodulosis is a rare event. The etiology of rheumatoid nodules is still unknown. Nodulosis is not necessarily associated with active joint inflammation, suggesting different pathogenic mechanisms for nodule formation and synovial tissue inflammation. We describe a patient with extensive pulmonary nodulosis, probably related to etanercept treatment. Our case emphasizes the need for careful monitoring for adverse events during treatment with biologicals, especially since the differential diagnosis often includes a broad spectrum of diseases.

Objectives: To observe the course of the disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with the standard infliximab dosing regimen and to adjust treatment guided by the pattern of disease activity., Methods: All RA patients starting infliximab treatment were included and observed for at least 37 weeks. At infusion 4 (week 14), European League Against Rheumatism response was assessed. In moderate responders the dose was unchanged and the disease activity was carefully observed. In case of stable disease activity, the dose was increased at infusion 5 (week 22). In case of a temporary response the interval was reduced. Paired t-testing was applied to the disease activity score with 28-joint counts (DAS28) at week 22 and study endpoint., Results: A total of 76 patients were included. Response after 14 weeks: good 22 (29%) patients, moderate 26 (34%) patients, and non-response in 21 patients. Seven patients (9%) dropped out before week 14 due to adverse events (5) or patients' initiative (2). In patients with moderate response, the following disease course between infusion 4 and 5 was observed: improvement to good response 6, temporary response 6, stable disease activity 6, drop out 8. In moderate responders, interval reduction and dose increase resulted in a decrease in mean DAS28 from 5.1 to 3.6 [P = 0.005, mean interval 5.6 weeks, mean infliximab dose 4.8 mg/kg/8 week (endpoint)] and from 4.1 to 3.6 [P = 0.04, mean infliximab dose 7.3 mg/kg/8 week (endpoint)], respectively., Conclusion: Three different patterns of disease activity were observed in moderate responders after 14 weeks of infliximab treatment, i.e. further improvement, no change in disease activity or a temporary response. Both interval reduction and dose increase significantly reduced disease activity, however, with different mean infliximab dosages. In good responders the response was often sustained over follow-up, whereas non-responders showed modest or no improvement despite dose adjustments.

Background: In recent clinical trials in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the response criteria and disease activity measures that have been used were those developed for rheumatoid arthritis. However, these have not yet been validated in PsA., Objective: To compare the responsiveness and discriminative capacity of the psoriatic arthritis response criteria (PsARC), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria and the Disease Activity Score (DAS) and core-set measures in patients with PsA and peripheral arthritis, using the data from two randomised placebo-controlled trials of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors., Methods: In an infliximab trial, 104 patients with active PsA were randomised to receive placebo or infliximab for 16 weeks. In an etanercept trial, 60 patients with active PsA were randomised to receive placebo or etanercept for 12 weeks. Data from baseline and the end of the intervention phase were used from each study. Responsiveness was assessed using the standardised response mean and effect size. Capacity to discriminate between the active drug and placebo was assessed using t values or a chi2 test. Measures were ranked in order of their t value or chi2 value., Results: The EULAR criteria performed better in discriminating the active drug from placebo than the ACR20 improvement criteria, which in turn performed better than the PsARC. It was also found that the pooled indices (DAS and DAS28) were generally more responsive, and performed better in discriminating active drug from placebo, than the single core-set measures., Conclusion: Response criteria and pooled indices developed for rheumatoid arthritis are useful for the assessment of arthritis in PsA clinical trials.

Background: Animal studies suggest that the anti-inflammatory effect of methotrexate (MTX) is mediated by increased adenosine concentrations., Objective: To assess the effect of MTX on the vasodilator effects of adenosine and the nucleoside uptake inhibitor, dipyridamole, in humans in vivo as a marker for changes in adenosine kinetics., Methods: Ten patients with active arthritis were treated with MTX (15 mg/week). Measurements were performed before and after 12 weeks of treatment. At these time points, the activity of adenosine deaminase was measured in isolated lymphocytes, and forearm blood flow (FBF) was determined by venous occlusion plethysmography during administration of adenosine and dipyridamole into the brachial artery., Results: The Vmax of adenosine deaminase in lymphocytes was reduced by MTX treatment (p<0.05). MTX significantly enhanced vasodilator response to adenosine (0.5 and 1.5 microg/min/dl of forearm tissue; mean (SE) FBF ratio increased from 1.2 (0.2) to 1.4 (0.2) and 2.2 (0.2) ml/dl/min, respectively, before and from 1.3 (0.1) to 1.8 (0.2) and 3.2 (0.5) ml/dl/min during MTX treatment; p<0.05). Also, dipyridamole-induced vasodilatation (30 and 100 microg/min/dl) was enhanced by MTX (FBF ratio increased from 1.2 (0.2) to 1.5 (0.3) and 1.8 (0.2), respectively, before and from 1.3 (0.1) to 1.8 (0.2) and 2.4 (0.4) during MTX treatment; p<0.05)., Conclusions: MTX treatment inhibits deamination of adenosine and potentiates adenosine-induced vasodilatation. Also dipyridamole-induced vasodilatation is enhanced by MTX treatment, suggesting an increased extracellular formation of adenosine. These effects on the adenosine kinetics in humans may contribute to the therapeutic efficacy of MTX.

Objective: To test the efficacy of standardised monitoring using the disease activity index DAS28 versus usual care on disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) prescription and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: A 24 week cluster randomised trial. Rheumatology outpatient centres were randomised to systematic monitoring of disease activity using the DAS28 (12 centres, 205 patients) or usual care (12 centres, 179 patients). The aim for the DAS group was to reach a DAS28 score of < or =3.2 by changes in DMARD treatment, at the discretion of the rheumatologist and the patient., Results: At baseline, disease activity was the same in both groups, with an overall mean (SD) DAS28 of 4.5 (1.2); 13% of the patients had a DAS28 of < or =3.2. At 24 weeks, 31% of patients in the DAS group had a DAS28 < or =3.2, while in the usual care centres this was 16% (p = 0.028). DMARDs were changed on average in 18% of visits in the DAS centres; in the 12 usual care centres they were changed on 8% of the visits (p = 0.013). The doses of methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and corticosteroids appeared to be higher in the DAS centres than in the usual care centres, but the differences were not significant., Conclusions: In daily practice, systematic monitoring of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis may lead to more changes in DMARD treatment, resulting in a larger number of patients with low disease activity.

Objective: To investigate the influence of previous and concomitant leflunomide on the efficacy and safety of infliximab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare it to infliximab in combination with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs., Methods: RA patients starting infliximab therapy were prospectively followed from January 2000. Every 3 months data were collected regarding disease activity (DAS28), adverse events and treatment changes. In the primary analyses all patients were classified into a leflunomide group (LEF group) if they had used leflunomide during infliximab therapy or within 6 months prior to starting infliximab therapy, the latter because of the long half-life of leflunomide. All other patients were considered as controls (non-LEF group). Secondary drug survival analyses were performed with the LEF group consisting only of patients on active leflunomide at the start of infliximab (active LEF group)., Results: A total of 162 RA patients started infliximab therapy (57 in the LEF group, 105 in the non-LEF group). No statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. Maximum follow-up time was 46 months for both groups. No differences in drug survival, disease activity or adverse events were observed between the groups. In both groups an increase in patients positive for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) was seen. ANA positivity at start did not predict DAS28 or the occurrence of adverse events. Secondary drug survival analyses showed no differences between the active LEF group and the non-LEF group., Conclusion: The results indicate that the administration of infliximab after or simultaneously with leflunomide is safe and efficacious in RA patients.

Background: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) is known to increase the concentrations of interleukin (IL) 6 and C reactive protein (CRP) and to induce proatherogenic changes in the lipid profile and may increase the cardiovascular risk of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory disorders., Objective: To assess whether anti-TNF therapy modifies the cardiovascular risk profile in patients with RA., Methods: The lipoprotein spectrum and the inflammation markers CRP and IL6 were investigated in 33 patients with RA treated with human anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies (D2E7, adalimumab, Humira) and 13 patients with RA given placebo, before and after 2 weeks' treatment., Results: In the anti-TNF treated group, the mean (SD) concentrations of HDL-cholesterol were significantly higher after 2 weeks' treatment (0.86 (0.30) mmol/l v 0.98 (0.33) mmol/l, p<0.01), whereas LDL and triglyceride levels were not significantly changed. Additionally, a significant decrease in CRP (86.1 (54.4) mg/l v 35.4 (35.0) mg/l, p<0.0001), and IL6 (88.3 (60.5) pg/ml v 42.3 (40.7) pg/ml, p<0.001) concentrations was seen in this group. No changes in lipid profile, IL6, or CRP levels were seen in the placebo group., Conclusions: TNF neutralisation with monoclonal anti-TNF antibodies increased HDL-cholesterol levels and decreased CRP and IL6 levels after 2 weeks. Therefore this treatment may improve the cardiovascular risk profile of patients with RA.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sulfasalazine to leflunomide treatment compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients with RA with an inadequate response to leflunomide monotherapy., Methods: Patients with active RA ((DAS28) >3.2) who were enrolled in the first open label phase of the RELIEF study received leflunomide for 24 weeks. Inadequate responders then entered the double blind phase and received a further 24 weeks' treatment with leflunomide (20 mg once daily) plus sulfasalazine (final dose 2 g once daily), or placebo plus sulfasalazine (dose as above). The primary efficacy variable was the DAS28 response rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes were ACR 20%, 50%, and 70% response rates. Adverse events, including standard laboratory tests, were recorded., Results: 106 inadequate responders entered the double blind phase; 56 received leflunomide plus sulfasalazine, and 50 placebo plus sulfasalazine. In the intention to treat population, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (25/56 (45%)) achieved a DAS28 response than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (17/50 (34%)) (p = 0.179). In week 24 completers, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (17/56 (30%)) were DAS28 responders than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (10/50 (20%)) (p = 0.081). Comparable numbers in each group were ACR 20% responders; the ACR 50% response rate was significantly higher in the leflunomide plus sulfasalazine group (8.9%) than in the placebo plus sulfasalazine group (0%) (p = 0.038). The safety profiles of both groups were comparable., Conclusion: Patient numbers are small and firm conclusions cannot be reached, but a non-significant benefit is indicated for combining leflunomide with sulfasalazine compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients inadequately responding to leflunomide.