Open Access

Meta-analysis of long-term joint structural deterioration in minimally treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis

  • Jeroen P. Jansen1, 4Email author,
  • Maria-Cecilia Vieira2,
  • John D. Bradley3,
  • Joseph C. Cappelleri3,
  • Samuel H. Zwillich3 and
  • Gene V. Wallenstein3
BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201617:348

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1195-4

Received: 25 March 2014

Accepted: 31 May 2016

Published: 18 August 2016

Abstract

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation and joint structural deterioration. Driven by recent expectations that patients in clinical trials randomized to placebo should be ‘rescued’ with active therapy within 6 months of starting treatment, the relative benefit of arresting joint damage with biologic agents beyond this period is unclear. With longer-term evidence of the rate of joint deterioration with minimal treatment, the efficacy of biologic agents and novel treatments might be projected beyond the placebo-controlled phase observed in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to estimate radiographic structural deterioration over time in patients with moderate-to-severe RA minimally treated with DMARDs.

Methods

A literature review identified evidence of joint structural deterioration in patients with (DMARD-IR population) and without (non-DMARD-IR population) a history of inadequate response to DMARDs. Patients were minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD or palliative care (non-DMARD-IR population only). Outcomes of interest were the (modified) Total Sharp Score (TSS) and subscales (Erosion Subscore [ES] and Joint Space Narrowing [JSN] Subscore), and Larsen score. Pooled joint-deterioration curves over time were obtained with meta-analysis models.

Results

Mean change from baseline in TSS increased in the DMARD-IR population from 1.14 (95 % credible interval [CrI] 0.66, 1.67) to 9.84 (5.68, 14.46) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively, and a non-linear increase of 1.56 (0.79, 2.34) and 5.13 (−1.35, 11.67) in the non-DMARD-IR population. At the same time points, mean changes (95 % CrI) were 0.51 (0.27, 0.83) and 4.43 (2.38, 7.21) for ES and 0.36 (0.09, 0.67) and 3.14 (0.80, 5.78) for JSN in the DMARD-IR population, whereas corresponding changes in the non-DMARD-IR population were 0.69 (0.31, 1.12) and 2.93 (0.92, 5.02), and 0.29 (0.17, 0.44) and 2.55 (1.45, 3.80), respectively. Larsen scores were only available for the non-DMARD-IR population, with mean changes (95 % CrI) of 0.08 (0.04, 0.11) and 0.65 (0.36, 0.96) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively.

Conclusion

Minimal treatment of RA with one non-biologic DMARD results in deterioration of joint structure in patients with or without a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs.

Keywords

Joint erosions Longitudinal studies Meta-analysis Radiography Rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common chronic inflammatory joint disorder. Without treatment most patients with RA become severely disabled. The goals of RA treatment are to reduce disease activity, reduce or inhibit the rate of joint damage and, if possible, achieve remission. Current pharmacologic therapies include traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents [13].

Biologic agents have been shown to inhibit radiographic joint destruction in patients with an inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs. Driven by recent expectations that patients in clinical trials randomized to placebo should be ‘rescued’ with active therapy within 6 months of starting treatment, the relative benefit of arresting joint damage with biologic agents beyond this period is unclear. With longer-term evidence of the rate of joint deterioration with placebo or minimal treatment, the efficacy of biologic agents and novel treatments might be projected beyond the placebo-controlled phase observed in clinical trials.

The objective of the current study was to estimate radiographic joint destruction over time with minimal treatment among the following populations of biologic DMARD-naïve RA patients: (1) moderate-to-severe RA patients with a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs who were treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD; and (2) moderate-to-severe RA patients without a history of inadequate response to a DMARD, who received palliative care (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], analgesics, low-dose glucocorticoids) or were being minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD. The first population was termed the “DMARD-IR population” and the second population the “non-DMARD-IR population”. The evidence for this analysis was obtained by means of a systematic literature review.

Methods

Study identification and selection

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies that provided information concerning joint structural deterioration among minimally treated RA patients. MEDLINE® and EMBASE® databases were searched simultaneously for articles published in English, French, or German, from 1970 to October 2009, with a predefined search strategy. Search terms included a combination of free text and thesaurus terms related to RA, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, non-biologic DMARDs, clinical trials, and observational studies. (See Additional file 1 for details of the search strategy.) The relevance of each citation identified from the databases was based on the title and abstract according to the predefined selection criteria outlined below:

Populations of interest

DMARD-IR, i.e., adult RA patients naïve to biologic DMARDs with a history of inadequate response to one or more non-biologic DMARDs; and non-DMARD-IR, i.e., adult RA patients naïve to biologic DMARDs without a history of inadequate response to a non-biologic DMARD. The non-DMARD-IR population could include both non-biologic DMARD-naïve (completely DMARD-naïve) and non-naïve (non-biologic DMARD-experienced) patients.

Interventions

NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, and single non-biologic DMARDs, including methotrexate (MTX), azathioprine (AZA), sulfasalazine (SSZ), leflunomide (LEF), ciclosporin A (CSA), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), minocycline, D-penicillamine, and gold salts.

Outcomes

Radiographic measures of joint deterioration: Larsen score (0–200 points range) [4, 5] and Total Sharp Score (TSS) (0–448), plus two TSS subscores (Erosion Subscore [ES] (0–280) and Joint Space Narrowing [JSN] (0–168) Subscore) [610].

Study design

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and prospective and retrospective observational cohort studies. Only study arms concerning the interventions of interest were included.

Publications were obtained, if available, for any abstracts that potentially met the selection criteria. Based on these full-text reports, two reviewers evaluated whether each study met the selection criteria and any disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.

Data extraction

For each of the selected studies that reported sufficient follow-up data, details were extracted from the relevant study arms on study design, population characteristics, interventions, and the outcomes of interest, i.e., the (modified) TSS and its two subscores (ES and JSN). Data were extracted into a study database according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2009 [11]. Mean change from baseline (CFB) in the outcomes of interest was extracted from tables, text, or graphs. If not reported, CFBs were calculated as the difference between reported follow-up and baseline values. Corresponding standard errors were extracted directly or calculated indirectly based on the following data (if available): reported standard deviation (SD) with sample size, 95 % confidence interval, or p-values (in this order of preference).

Larsen scores were not consistently evaluated or reported. Different numbers and sets of joints were evaluated in the various studies, including hands and feet, or hands, feet, and wrists, and many studies did not report which or how many joints were evaluated. Moreover, some studies reported the total scores and some reported an average of scores per joint. Consequently, the analyses were based on standardized mean CFB in Larsen score, calculated as the reported CFB divided by the corresponding SD of this change.

Meta-analysis of joint structural deterioration over time

Mean CFB in TSS, ES, JSN, and the standardized Larsen scores obtained from the selected studies were combined with Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis models to estimate joint deterioration over time for the DMARD-IR and non-DMARD-IR populations [12]. Any study that did not explicitly state whether or not patients had previously shown an inadequate response to DMARDs was assigned to the non-DMARD-IR population. Depending on the availability of data by endpoint and population, two sets of analyses were performed. In the first series of analyses, all non-biologic-DMARDs were considered as one group and the development of the outcomes of interest was estimated. Studies evaluating only NSAIDs were not combined with studies evaluating DMARDs. In the second series of analyses, the development of the outcome over time was compared among individual DMARD (e.g., MTX, LEF, and AZA) using only data from comparative studies. All analyses provided curves reflecting the pooled mean CFB in TSS, ES, JSN, and the standardized Larsen score over time, along with their respective 95 % credible intervals (95 % CrIs).

Within the Bayesian framework, analyses consisted of data, likelihood, parameters, and a model. Bayesian methods involve a formal combination of a prior probability distribution (that reflects a prior belief of the possible values of the parameters of interest) with a likelihood distribution based on the observed data, to obtain a posterior probability distribution of the parameters of interest [13]. A normal likelihood distribution was assumed.

We opted for statistical models that assume that outcomes develop over time in a linear fashion, as well as models that anticipate that outcomes can develop in a non-linear fashion over time [1416]. The advantage of the used meta-analysis models is that all available data points of each study included in the analysis are captured, even if time points are not the same across studies, and (non-) linear trends of the development of outcomes over time are estimated [12]. Details of the meta-analysis models are provided in Additional file 2. Model 1 and 2 were used to estimate the development over time where all non-biologic DMARDs were grouped. Model 3 and 4 were used for the comparative analysis of different DMARDS. The deviance information criterion (DIC) provides a measure of model fit that penalizes model complexity and was used to compare the different models [17, 18]. The model with the lowest DIC and, therefore the model with the “best fit”, was considered the most appropriate.

To avoid prior beliefs influencing the results of the model, non-informative prior distributions were used. Prior distributions of all model parameters were normal distributions with a mean of 0 and a variance of 104, except for heterogeneity, which was a uniform distribution with a range of 0–10. With such a “flat” prior, it is assumed that, in advance of the actual data, any parameter value is “equally” likely. As a consequence, posterior results are not influenced by the prior distribution but are driven by the data. The result of the Bayesian analysis is a (joint) posterior distribution for the model parameters of interest. The model parameters were estimated using a Markov chain Monte Carlo method as implemented in the WinBUGS software package [19].

Results

Study selection

The study selection process, including the reasons for exclusion, is summarized in Fig. 1. The literature search identified 2076 potentially relevant studies, although the first review excluded 1892 (91 %) of these. The full-text review of the 184 remaining studies excluded another 111 studies. Of the 73 articles meeting the selection criteria, another 29 studies were excluded because of insufficient data on the outcomes of interest during follow-up. Overall, 44 studies were included [2063].
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of study selection

Study characteristics

Information on key study and patient characteristics are presented in Tables 1 and 2. All 44 studies were RCTs, except for one retrospective [31] and two prospective cohort studies [33, 52], and were published between 1982 and 2009, with follow-up periods ranging from 24 weeks to 2 years. Twelve studies concerned the DMARD-IR population [2031] and the remaining 32 studies concerned the non-DMARD-IR population [3263]. Only two studies provided data on the Larsen score for the DMARD-IR population, while 10 provided data on the (modified) TSS in this population. For the non-DMARD-IR population, 17 studies provided data on Larsen score only, 14 studies provided data on the (modified) TSS, and one study provided data on both. As some of the studies contributed data from more than one arm (three studies in the DMARD-IR population [21, 22, 31] and 13 studies in the non-DMARD-IR population [35, 36, 38, 41, 48, 50, 51, 54, 57, 59, 6163]), the total number of treatment arms included in the analyses was 63: 16 for DMARD-IR and 47 for non-DMARD-IR. Among the 47 arms that formed the non-DMARD-IR population, only 12 included patients who had been previously exposed to DMARDs. Hence, the majority of patients in this population could be considered DMARD-naïve.
Table 1

Key study characteristics

Study [Ref]

Study design

Follow-up period

Reassignment in studies of biologics

Larsen

JSN

ES

TSS

Outcomes of interest

DMARD-IR population

 Breedveld et al. 2004 [20]

RCT

NA

No reassignment; MTX dose increase for non-responders

No

No

No

Yes

Modified TSS

 Hamdy et al. 1987 [21]

Double-blind RCT

1.5 years

NA

No

No

No

Yes

TSS

 Jeurissen et al. 1991 [22]

Double-blind RCT

48 weeks

NA

No

No

No

Yes

Modified TSS

 Keystone et al. 2004 [23]

Double-blind RCT

1 year

No reassignment; MTX dose increase for non-responders

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Keystone et al. 2008 [24]

Double-blind RCT

1 year

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Lipsky et al. 2000 [25]

RCT

1 year

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Maini et al. 2004 [26]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Sany et al. 1990 [27]

RCT

2 years

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Smolen et al. 2009 [28]

RCT

2 years

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 van der Heijde et al. 2006 [29]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 van Holten et al. 2005 [30]

Double-blind RCT

24 weeks

NA

No

No

No

Yes

Modified TSS

 Wick et al. 2005 [31]

Retrospective cohort

NA

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

Non-DMARD-IR population

 Bathon et al. 2000 [32]

RCT

1 year

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Boiardi et al. 1999 [33]

Prospective cohort

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Breedveld et al. 2006 [34]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

No reassignment; MTX dose increase for non-responders

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Choy et al. 2008 [35]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Cohen et al. 2001 [36]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Cohen et al. 2008 [37]

Double-blind RCT

1 year

NA

No

Yes

Yes

No

Modified TSS

 Emery et al. 2000 [38]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Emery et al. 2008 [39]

Double-blind RCT

1 year

No reassignment

No

No

No

Yes

Modified TSS

 Emery et al. 2009 [40]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Ferraccioli et al. 1996 [41]

Open-label RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Ferraccioli et al. 1997 [42]

Open-label RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Goldbach-Mansky et al. 2009 [43]

RCT

24 weeks

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Hannonen et al. 1993 [44]

Double-blind RCT

48 weeks

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Hetland et al. 2006 [45]

Double-blind RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Hetland et al. 2008 [46]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Landewé et al. 2002 [47]

Double-blind RCT

1 year

NA

No

No

No

Yes

Modified TSS

 Larsen et al. 2001 [48]

Double-blind RCT

24 weeks

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Maravic et al. 1999 [49]

Open-label RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

Yes

Larsen scores and TSS

 Marchesoni et al. 2002 [50]

First phase was open and uncontrolled; second phase was single-blind RCT

2 years

NA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Larsen scores and TSS

 Peltomaa et al. 1995 [51]

RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Sanmarti et al. 2003 [52]

Prospective cohort

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Sarzi-Puttini et al. 2005 [53]

RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Scott et al. 1985 [54]

RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Scott et al. 1989 [55]

RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Scott et al. 1990 [56]

RCT

2 years

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Smith et al. 1982 [57]

Open-label RCT

2 years

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 St Clair et al. 2004 [58]

RCT

2 years

No reassignment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS,

 Strand et al. 1999 [59]

Double-blind RCT

1 year

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 Svensson et al. 2003 [60]

Double-blind RCT

1.5 years

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Larsen scores

 Svensson et al. 2005 [61]

Open-label RCT

2 years

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

 van Riel et al. 1986 [62]

Single-blind RCT

1 year

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Modified Larsen scores

 Wassenberg et al. 2005 [63]

Double-blind RCT

2 years

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Modified TSS

DMARD disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, DMARD-IR patient population with moderate-to-severe RA with a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD, ES Erosion Subscore of TSS, JSN Joint Space Narrowing Subscore of TSS, MTX methotrexate, NA not available, non-DMARD-IR patient population with moderate to severe RA without a history of inadequate response to a DMARD who are currently receiving palliative care (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, low-dose glucocorticoids) or are being minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD, RA rheumatoid arthritis, Ref reference, RCT randomized controlled trial, TSS modified Total Sharp Score

Table 2

Patient characteristics at baseline

Study [Ref] Patient type

Treatment (No. patients, ITT)

Female, %

Mean age (SD), years

RF+, %

Mean disease duration (SD), months

Mean CRP (SD), mg/dL

Mean ESR (SD), mm/h

Mean score (SD)

HAQ (0–3)

DAS-28

SJC

TJC

TSS

JSN

ES

Larsen

DMARD-IR population

Breedveld et al. 2004 [20]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 88)

78

54a

NA

100.8

2.6a

42a

1.8a

NA

20a

31a

52a

28a

24a

NA

Hamdy et al. 1987 [21]

DMARD-experienced

AZA (n = 21)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

44.8

NA

NA

21.6

NA

53.1

NA

NA

NA

MTX (n = 21)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

41.5

NA

NA

22.2

NA

44.5

NA

NA

NA

Jeurissen et al. 1991 [22]

DMARD-experienced

AZA (n = 33)

52

56 (9)

NA

112.8 (67.2)

NA

60.2 (27.9)

NA

NA

18.7 (7.0)

23.0 (10.7)

60.5

NA

NA

NA

MTX (n = 31)

84

57 (10)

NA

153.6 (120.0)

NA

57.5 (27.9)

NA

NA

18.8 (7.2)

22.5 (10.1)

62.7

NA

NA

NA

Keystone et al. 2004 [23]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 200)

73

56 (12)

89.5

130.8 (105.6)

1.8 (2.1)

NA

1.5 (0.6)

NA

19 (9.5)

28.1 (13.8)

66.4 (47.4)

29.2 (24.5)

37.2 (25.8)

NA

Keystone et al. 2008 [24]

MTX-experienced

MTX (n = 199)

84

52 (11)

82.8

74.4 (52.8)

1.6a

NA

1.7 (0.6)

7.0a

21.2 (9.7)

29.8 (13.0)

NA

NA

NA

NA

Lipsky et al. 2000 [25]

DMARD-IR

MTX (n = 88)

80

51 (12)

77.0

132.0 (96.0)

4.0 (4.2)

49.0 (25.0)

1.7 (0.6)

NA

21 (12.0)

31.0 (18.0)

82.0 (77.0)

NA

NA

NA

Maini et al. 2004 [26]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 88)

78

54

NA

NA

2.6

NA

1.8

NA

20.0

31.0

NA

28.3

23.5

NA

Sany et al. 1990 [27]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 41)

88

54 (27–78)b

82.9

154.8

NA

62.8 (34.3)

NA

NA

9.1 (2.8)

NA

NA

NA

NA

83.8 (24.4)

Smolen et al. 2009 [28]

MTX-experienced

MTX (n = 127)

84

52 (12)

78.2

67.2 (46.8)

1.4

40.8

1.6 (0.6)

6.8 (0.9)

21.9 (9.7)

30.4 (13.4)

46.5 (58.6)

23.4 (27.7)

23.1 (32.1)

NA

van der Heijde et al. 2006 [29]

MTX-experienced

MTX (n = 228)

76

52

NA

NA

2.6

NA

1.7

NA

22.7

33.2

35.5

NA

NA

NA

van Holten et al. 2005 [30]

MTX-experienced

MTX (n = 73)

66

54 (12)

71.2

49.2 (28.8)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Wick et al. 2005 [31]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 56)

71

NA

NA

6.8 (3.9)

3.2 (4.0)

29.5 (20.3)

1.1 (0.6)

5.4 (1.1)

11 (5.6)

9.8 (6.2)

NA

NA

NA

15.6 (9.6)

SSZ (n = 55)

56

NA

NA

6.5 (3.6)

1.9 (18.0)

28.2 (23.1)

0.8 (0.5)

4.8 (1.1)

10.3 (5.8)

7.5 (6.0)

NA

NA

NA

12.9 (9.4)

Gold (n = 19)

63

NA

NA

7.0 (4.4)

1.1 (9.0)

16.3 (9.6)

0.8 (0.5)

4.1 (0.9)

4.5 (3.5)

4.6 (3.7)

NA

NA

NA

9.6 (7.0)

Non-DMARD-IR population

Bathon et al. 2000 [32]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 217)

75

49 (13)

89.0

12.0 (11.0)

3.7 (4.4)

NA

NA

NA

24 (11.9)

30.0 (16.1)

12.9 (13.8)

5.4 (6.1)

7.5 (9.2)

NA

Boiardi et al. 1999 [33]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 20)

90

64 (13)

50.0

69.0 (90.0)

2.5 (2.1)

39.0 (22.0)

NA

NA

8.9 (3.8)

NA

NA

NA

NA

39.4 (34.6)

Breedveld et al. 2006 [34]

DMARD-naïve

MTX (n = 257)

74

52 (13)

NA

9.6 (10.8)

4.0 (4.0)

NA

1.5 (0.6)

6.3 (0.9)

22.1 (11.7)

32.3 (14.3)

21.9 (22.2)

8.2 (10.7)

13.6 (13.6)

NA

Choy et al. 2008 [35]

Early RA; DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 117)

67

54 (21–89)b

66.0

2.7 (3.8)

NA

NA

1.5 (0.7)

5.8 (1.2)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7a (3–15)b

MTX (n = 115)

78

54 (27–84)b

66.0

5.1 (5.8)

NA

NA

1.6 (0.7)

5.8 (1.4)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6a (2–20)b

Cohen et al. 2001 [36]

MTX-naïve

LEF (n = 190)

73

54

NA

82.8

2.2 (2.8)

38.3 (26.0)

0.7 (0.5)

NA

13.3 (6.3)

13.4 (5.6)

23.8 (38.5)

13.5 (17.2)

10.3 (25.6)

NA

MTX (n = 190)

74

53

NA

78.0

2.0 (1.9)

35.9 (25.7)

0.7 (0.5)

NA

13 (5.4)

14.3 (6.5)

25.1 (42.3)

14.5 (21.7)

10.6 (22.9)

NA

Cohen et al. 2008 [37]

MTX-experienced

DMARD (n = 75)

83

57 (11)

78.0

116.4 (97.2)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

29.9 (34.7)

13.3 (18.9)

16.6 (17.2)

NA

Emery et al. 2000 [38]

DMARD-experienced

LEF (n = 501)

71

58 (10)

NA

44.4 (38.4)

NA

NA

NA

NA

15.8 (6.0)

17.2 (6.8)

NA

NA

NA

1.3 (0.5)

MTX (n = 498)

71

58 (11)

NA

45.6 (42.0)

NA

NA

NA

NA

16.5 (5.9)

17.7 (6.7)

NA

NA

NA

1.3 (0.5)

Emery et al. 2008 [39]

MTX-naïve

MTX (n = 263)

73

52 (1)

NA

9.3 (0.4)

3.7 (3.4)

49.3 (24.1)

1.6 (0.7)

6.5 (1.0)

17.6 (10.0)

24.8 (14.5)

NA

NA

NA

NA

Emery et al. 2009 [40]

MTX-naïve

MTX (n = 257)

74

52 (13)

84.0

10.1 (10.7)

4.0 (4.0)

NA

1.5 (0.7)

6.3 (0.9)

22.1 (11.7)

32.3 (14.3)

21.9 (22.2)

8.2 (10.7)

13.6 (13.5)

NA

Ferraccioli et al. 1996 [41]

DMARD-naïve

CSA (n = 141)

77

48 (12)

NA

16.8 (14.4)

8.3 (16.7)

46.9 (25.2)

NA

NA

14.9 (7.5)

23.8 (9.6)

NA

NA

NA

25.0 (23.0)

Anti-malarial/Gold/D-penicill-amine/SSZ (n = 143)

78

51 (12)

NA

15.6 (13.2)

8.5 (17.5)

47.5 (30.8)

NA

NA

14.7 (7.8)

23.2 (9.8)

NA

NA

NA

23.8 (24.1)

Ferraccioli et al. 1997 [42]

DMARD-naïve

CSA (n = 167)

78

48 (12)

NA

16.8 (14.4)

7.7 (15.5)

48.5 (26.2)

NA

NA

15.2 (7.7)

23.8 (9.4)

NA

NA

NA

26.0 (21.8)

Anti-malarial/Gold/D-penicill-amine/SSZ (n = 173)

79

50 (12)

NA

15.6 (14.4)

8.7 (18.0)

47.6 (30.7)

NA

NA

15.1 (7.7)

23.9 (9.7)

NA

NA

NA

25.0 (22.2)

Goldbach-Mansky et al. 2009 [43]

MTX-experienced

SSZ (n = 61)

87

52 (12)

NA

NA

2.5 (2.9)

51.0 (23.0)

NA

7.0 (1.0)

22 (13.0)

33.0 (17.0)

21.4 (31.2)

13.3

8.1 (0.4)

NA

Hannonen et al. 1993 [44]

DMARD-naïve

SSZ (n = 38)

61

52 (22–78)b

65.8

4.7

2.7 (3.0)

37.7 (21.3)

NA

NA

6.8 (3.3)

NA

1.9 (0–14.0)b

1.1 (0–8.0)b

0.8 (0–6.0)b

NA

Hetland et al. 2006 [45]

Early RA; DMARD-naïve

MTX (n = 80)

70

51a (39.5-62.5)c

59.0

46.8

1.9a

27a

0.9a

5.5 (1.3)

11a (6–15)c

14a (8–20)c

NA

NA

NA

4.6 (7.4)

Hetland et al. 2008 [46]

Early RA; MTX-experienced

MTX (n = 80)

NA

NA

NA

NA

1.9a

27a

0.9a

5.7a

11a (6–15)c

14a (8–20)c

4.8 (5.9)

1.7 (3.8)

3.1 (4.1)

NA

Landewé et al. 2002 [47]

DMARD-naïve

SSZ (n = 74)

53

NA

71.0

3.6

NA

NA

1.4 (0.7)

6.1 (1.1)

NA

NA

5a (1–10)c

NA

NA

NA

Larsen et al. 2001 [48]

DMARD-experienced

LEF (n = 133)

76

58 (11)

NA

96.0 (108.0)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1.5 (0.7)

SSZ (n = 133)

69

59 (11)

NA

84.0 (120.0)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1.4 (0.7)

Maravic et al. 1999 [49]

MTX-naïve

MTX (n = 29)

72

49 (15)

37.9

6.6

1.9a

36a

NA

NA

12a (3–27)b

NA

4.4

NA

NA

15.8 (15.9)

Marchesoni et al. 2002 [50]

DMARD-naïve

CSA (n = 22)

NA

50 (12)

NA

9.6 (6.0)

0.8 (1.1)

29.2 (17.4)

0.5 (0.5)

3.2 (1.2)

3.2 (4.0)

4.3 (5.2)

NA

NA

NA

5.1 (7.0)

MTX (n = 27)

NA

50 (12)

NA

9.6 (6.0)

0.6 (1.3)

29.4 (13.2)

0.4 (0.5)

3.5 (1.0)

3.1 (4.6)

4.8 (5.7)

NA

NA

NA

5.0 (8.8)

Peltomaa et al. 1995 [51]

DMARD-naïve

Gold (n = 70)

77

45

NA

7.7

2.7

35.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5.5 (0–22)b

SSZ (n = 58)

71

49

NA

5.8

2.8

41.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8.9 (0–34)b

Sanmarti et al. 2003 [52]

DMARD-naïve

Gold/MTX (n = 60)

78

52 (16)

78.3

9.5 (6.5)

2.9 (3.1)

45.3 (27.7)

1.0 (0.5)

5.8 (0.8)

8.0 (4.1)

10.2 (5.5)

NA

NA

NA

1.9 (3.3)

Sarzi-Puttini et al. 2005 [53]

DMARD-naïve

CSA (n = 36)

78

51 (10)

66.7

14.8 (8.4)

3.0 (1.8)

45.0 (20.0)

1.3 (0.6)

NA

12.2 (5.6)

15.31 (6.41)

NA

NA

NA

14.5 (10.0)

Scott et al. 1985 [54]

DMARD-naïve

DMARD (n = 56)

55

56

NA

NA

4.9

56.5

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

52.0 (27.7)

NSAID (n = 15)

60

52

NA

NA

1.9

22.6

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

41.3 (34.5)

Scott et al. 1989 [55]

DMARD-naïve

Gold (n = 49)

61

55 (3)

NA

24.0

0.5 (1.1)

57.0 (7.0)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

33.9 (9.8)

Scott et al. 1990 [56]

DMARD-naïve

D-penicill-amine (n = 20)

NA

NA

NA

NA

6.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

25.6

HCQ (n = 23)

NA

NA

NA

NA

6.2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

25.5

Smith et al. 1982 [57]

DMARD-naïve

Gold (n = 26)

69

45

80.8

90.0

NA

89.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

54.2 (6.0)

Gold (n = 26)

62

46

65.4

76.8

NA

83.4

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

47.4 (5.0)

St Clair et al. 2004 [58]

DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 282)

75

50 (13)

71.0

10.8 (8.4)

2.6 (2.9)

43.0 (28.0)

1.5 (0.6)

6.7 (1.0)

22.0 (11.0)

34 (15.0)

11.3 (15.9)

3.0 (4.8)

8.3 (12.3)

NA

Strand et al. 1999 [59]

MTX-naïve

LEF (n = 182)

73

54 (12)

64.8

84.0 (103.2)

2.1 (2.5)

38.4 (26.8)

0.8 (0.6)

NA

13.7 (6.0)

15.5 (6.4)

23.1 (34.0)

14.2 (18.9)

9.0 (19.6)

NA

MTX (n = 182)

75

53 (12)

59.4

78.0

1.9 (1.9)

33.8 (25.4)

0.8 (0.5)

NA

13.0 (5.7)

15.8 (6.9)

22.8 (39.0)

14.7 (23.3)

8.1 (18.4)

NA

Svensson et al. 2003 [60]

Early RA; DMARD-experienced

MTX (n = 50)

58

52

62.0

9.0

5.4

49.9

1.2

NA

19.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

7.5 (10.8)

Svensson et al. 2005 [61]

DMARD-naïve

DMARD (n = 119)

65

51 (14)

66.0

6.5 (3.5)

2.2

NA

1.0 (0.6)

5.3 (1.1)

NA

NA

4.1 (9.2)

2.2 (4.6)

1.9 (5)

NA

DMARD (n = 131)

63

59 (13)

66.0

5.8 (2.9)

2.2

NA

1.0 (0.7)

5.4 (1.0)

NA

NA

4.8 (9.6)

2.9 (6.4)

1.9 (4)

NA

Van Riel et al. 1986 [62]

DMARD-naïve

Gold (n = 22)

77

50 (12)

NA

37.2 (38.4)

NA

56.0 (36.0)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

30.9 (12.5)

Gold (n = 18)

72

55 (8)

NA

51.6 (52.8)

NA

53.0 (37.0)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

27.6 (12.5)

Wassenberg et al. 2005 [63]

MTX-naïve

Gold (66 %)/MTX (34 %) (n = 80)

25

53 (13)

43.0

8.6 (6.7)

NA

44.5 (24.9)

NA

NA

NA

NA

11.9 (2.1)

6.0 (1.3)

6.0 (1.08)

NA

Gold (59 %)/MTX (41 %) (n = 86)

35

50 (13)

47.0

9.3 (6.6)

NA

40.1 (24.6)

NA

NA

NA

NA

9.4 (1.9)

4.5 (1.2)

4.7 (0.87)

NA

AZA azathioprine, CRP C-reactive protein, CSA ciclosporin A, DAS-28 disease activity score in 28 joints, DMARD disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, DMARD-IR patient population with moderate-to-severe RA with a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD, ES Erosion Subscore of TSS, ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate, gold gold salts, HAQ Health Assessment Questionnaire, HCQ hydroxychloroquine, ITT intent to treat, JSN Joint Space Narrowing Subscore of TSS, LEF leflunomide, MTX methotrexate, NA not available, non-DMARD-IR patient population with moderate-to-severe RA without a history of inadequate response to a DMARD who are currently receiving palliative care (NSAIDs, analgesics, low-dose glucocorticoids) or are being minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD, NSAID non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, RA rheumatoid arthritis, Ref reference, RF+ rheumatoid factor positive, SJC swollen joint count, SSZ sulfasalazine, TJC tender joint count, TSS modified Total Sharp Score

aMedian. bRange. cInterquartile range

The patients received the following treatments g : MTX (in 12 treatment arms across the studies); AZA (2); SSZ (1); and gold salts (1) for the DMARD-IR population; and MTX (16); gold salts (9); SSZ (5); LEF (four 4); CSA (4); HCQ (1); D-penicillamine (1); antimalarials, D-penicillamine, SSZ, or gold salts (2); any one of a list of non-biologic DMARDs (4); and NSAIDs (4) for the non-DMARD-IR population. The number of patients included ranged from 29 to 228 for DMARD-IR arms and from 20 to 501 for non-DMARD-IR arms.

Patient characteristics

The DMARD-IR and the non-DMARD-IR populations showed comparable distributions for gender, age, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). On average, 73 % of the patients were women in the DMARD-IR studies versus 70 % in the non-DMARD-IR studies; the average ages were 54 and 52 years, respectively. The median of the reported baseline CRP level was 2.2 mg/dL across the DMARD-IR studies and 2.6 mg/dL across the non-DMARD-IR studies. The median of the reported baseline ESR was 43 mm/h across DMARD-IR studies and 44 mm/h across non-DMARD-IR studies. There was a large variation in baseline CRP level and ESR across the non-DMARD-IR studies. As expected, the disease duration was skewed and longer among the DMARD-IR patients (median of 88 months) versus the non-DMARD-IR patients (median of 15 months). For the DMARD-IR population, the median of the reported baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score across the studies was 1.7; the HAQ scale ranges from zero (no disability) to three (completely disabled). The median baseline TSS for the DMARD-IR population was 53. For the non-DMARD-IR population the median of the reported HAQ scores across studies was 1.0 and the median TSS was 11.9.

Joint structural deterioration over time in the DMARD-IR population

The mean CFB in TSS within the DMARD-IR population, as obtained from the individual studies, is presented in Fig. 2. These results were combined with a random-effects meta-analysis (Additional file 2, Model 1), where the change in TSS over time developed in a linear fashion from 1.14 at Week 12 to 9.84 at Week 104 (Table 3). There was a high probability that continuation of treatment with any one non-biologic DMARD in the setting of inadequate response would result in deterioration of the joint structure over time.
Fig. 2

Mean change from baseline in TSS in the DMARD-IR population. Data are as observed in individual studies and estimated with meta-analysis. Solid line represents the mean estimate for a given treatment arm and the dashed lines show the corresponding 95 % credible interval. AZA: azathioprine; DMARD-IR: patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with a history of inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD; MTX: methotrexate; TSS: modified Total Sharp Score

Table 3

Mean change from baseline in TSS and subscores in the DMARD-IR population as estimated with meta-analysis

 

Week 12

Week 24

Week 52

Week 104

CFB

95 % CrI

Probability of deterioration relative to baseline

CFB

95 % CrI

p-value

CFB

95 % CrI

Probability of deterioration relative to baseline

CFB

95 % CrI

Probability of deterioration relative to baseline

TSS

 DMARDs

1.14

(0.66, 1.67)

>0.99

2.27

(1.31, 3.34)

>0.99

4.92

(2.84, 7.23)

>0.99

9.84

(5.68, 14.46)

>0.99

 MTXa

0.97

(0.49, 1.52)

0.99

1.95

(0.98, 3.05)

0.99

4.22

(2.13, 6.6)

0.99

8.44

(4.26, 13.21)

0.99

 AZAa

2.16

(2.16, 3.04)

>0.99

4.32

(2.59, 6.07)

>0.99

9.35

(5.62, 13.15)

>0.99

18.70

(11.24, 26.31)

>0.99

Erosion Subscore

 DMARDs

0.51

(0.27, 0.83)

0.99

1.02

(0.55, 1.66)

0.99

2.22

(1.19, 3.6)

0.99

4.43

(2.38, 7.21)

0.99

 MTXa

0.43

(0.25, 0.69)

0.98

0.87

(0.49, 1.39)

0.98

1.88

(1.07, 3.01)

0.98

3.76

(2.14, 6.01)

0.98

 AZAa

1.31

(1.31, 1.98)

>0.99

2.62

(1.3, 3.96)

>0.99

5.67

(2.81, 8.57)

>0.99

11.35

(5.61, 17.14)

>0.99

Joint Space Narrowing Subscore

 DMARDs

0.36

(0.09, 0.67)

0.99

0.72

(0.18, 1.33)

0.99

1.57

(0.4, 2.89)

0.99

3.14

(0.80, 5.78)

0.90

AZA azathioprine, CrI credible interval; DMARD disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; DMARD-IR patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD, CFB change from baseline; MTX methotrexate, p-value probability of joint structural deterioration relative to baseline; TSS modified Total Sharp Score

aEstimated based on comparative data only, using models for relative treatment effects (see Model 3 and 4 in Additional file 2), which allows comparative interpretation of MTX and AZA findings

Table 3 also presents the results of the analysis (Additional file 2, Model 3) that compared joint deterioration as observed with MTX and AZA. Continuation of treatment with AZA was associated with greater joint deterioration than continuation of treatment with MTX in this DMARD-IR population.

The progression in ES extracted from the individual studies and the pooled results (0.51 at Week 12 and 4.43 at Week 104) obtained with the meta-analysis (Additional file 2, Model 1) are presented in Fig. 3. There was a 98 % to 100 % chance that ES would deteriorate over time when DMARD-IR patients received minimal treatment with a non-biologic DMARD (Table 3). As inferred from the comparative analysis, a greater rate of deterioration was expected with AZA than with MTX.
Fig. 3

Mean change from baseline in ES in the DMARD-IR population. Data are as observed in individual studies and estimated with meta-analysis. Solid line represents the mean estimate for a given treatment arm and the dashed lines show the corresponding 95 % credible interval. AZA: azathioprine; DMARD-IR: patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with a history of inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD; ES: Erosion Subscore; MTX: methotrexate

When DMARD-IR patients were treated with MTX alone mean changes in JSN were 0.36 at Week 12 and 3.14 at Week 104 (Fig. 4; Table 3).
Fig. 4

Mean change from baseline in JSN Subscore in the DMARD-IR population. Data are as observed in individual studies and estimated with meta-analysis. Solid line represents the mean estimate for a given treatment arm and the dashed lines show the corresponding 95 % credible interval. DMARD-IR: patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with a history of inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD; JSN: Joint Space Narrowing; MTX: methotrexate

For joint deterioration as measured with the Larsen score, only two studies with sufficient data were available for the DMARD-IR population [27, 31]. As neither study reported repeated intermediate observations, no meta-analysis model for change over time was estimated. At 24 weeks, a deterioration of 0.52 was observed with MTX [27]. In the other study the deterioration varied from 0.53 points with SSZ to 1.06 with gold salts at 52 weeks [31].

Joint structural deterioration over time in the non-DMARD-IR population

The rate of deterioration in the non-DMARD-IR population was not as great as for the DMARD-IR patients. The progression of the TSS for the non-DMARD-IR population is presented in Fig. 5 and Table 4. Individual study results were combined with a random-effects meta-analysis model, where the change in TSS from baseline developed in a non-linear fashion (fractional polynomial with p1 = p2 = 1. Additional file 2, Model 2) and shows an increase in TSS from 1.56 at 12 weeks to 5.13 at 104 weeks. Up to at least 104 weeks, there was at least a 94 % chance that continuing treatment with one DMARD would result in deterioration of the joint structure in the non-DMARD-IR population (Table 4). An analysis (Additional file 2, Model 4) comparing LEF and MTX based on two head-to-head RCTs indicated a similar rate of deterioration with LEF and MTX [37, 59].
Fig. 5

Mean change from baseline in TSS in the non-DMARD-IR population. Data are as observed in individual studies and estimated with meta-analysis. Solid line represents the mean estimate for a given treatment arm and the dashed lines show the corresponding 95 % credible interval. AZA: azathioprine; DMARD: disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; DMARD-IR: patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with a history of inadequate response to DMARDs who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD; LEF: leflunomide; MTX: methotrexate; SSZ: sulfasalazine; TSS: modified Total Sharp Score

Table 4

Mean change from baseline in TSS and subscores plus Larsen Score in the non-DMARD-IR population as estimated with meta-analysis

 

Week 12

Week 24

Week 52

Week 104

CFB

95 % CrI

Probability of deterioration relative to baseline

CFB

95 % CrI

Probability of deterioration relative to baseline

CFB

95 % CrI

Probability of deterioration relative to baseline

CFB

95 % CrI

Probability of deterioration relative to baseline

TSS

 DMARDs

1.56

(0.79, 2.34)

>0.99

2.49

(1.2, 3.79)

>0.99

3.91

(1.16, 6.7)

>0.99

5.13

(−1.35, 11.67)

0.94

 MTXa

1.07

(0.62, 1.53)

>0.99

1.76

(1, 2.57)

>0.99

2.89

(1.41, 4.56)

>0.99

4.15

(1.08, 7.63)

>0.99

 AZAa

0.73

(−0.08, 1.54)

0.96

1.34

(0.17, 2.52)

0.99

2.57

(0.86–4.41)

>0.99

4.55

(1.19, 8.26)

>0.99

Erosion Subscore

 DMARDs

0.69

(0.31, 1.12)

>0.99

1.07

(0.5, 1.67)

>0.99

1.80

(0.76, 2.85)

>0.99

2.93

(0.92, 5.02)

>0.99

 MTXa

0.64

(0.2, 1.07)

>0.99

0.99

(0.32, 1.68)

>0.99

1.65

(0.35, 3.05)

0.99

2.70

(0.08, 5.53)

0.98

 AZAa

0.59

(0.13, 1.03)

0.99

0.88

(0.17, 1.59)

0.99

1.41

(0.05, 2.86)

0.98

2.21

(−0.53, 5.14)

0.95

Joint Space Narrowing Subscore

 DMARDs

0.29

(0.17, 0.44)

>0.99

0.59

(0.34, 0.88)

>0.99

1.28

(0.73, 1.9)

>0.99

2.55

(1.45, 3.8)

>0.99

 MTXa

0.26

(0.05, 0.51)

0.99

0.51

(0.1, 1.02)

0.99

1.11

(0.22, 2.2)

0.99

2.21

(0.45, 4.41)

0.99

 AZAa

0.24

(0.02, 0.5)

0.98

0.48

(0.05, 1)

0.98

1.04

(0.1, 2.17)

0.98

2.08

(0.21, 4.34)

0.98

(Standardized) Larsen score

 DMARDs

0.08

(0.04–0.11)

>0.99

0.15

(0.08–0.22)

>0.99

0.33

(0.18–0.48)

>0.99

0.65

(0.36–0.96)

>0.99

AZA azathioprine, CFB change from baseline, CrI credible interval, DMARD disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, MTX methotrexate, non-DMARD-IR patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis without a history of inadequate response to a DMARD who are currently receiving palliative care (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, low-dose glucocorticoids) or are being minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD, p-value probability of joint structural deterioration relative to baseline, TSS modified Total Sharp Score

aEstimated based on comparative data only, using models for relative treatment effects (see Model 3 and 4 in Additional file 2), which allows comparative interpretation of MTX and AZA findings

For ES, the individual study results were also combined with a random-effects non-linear meta-analysis model (fractional polynomial with p1 = 1 and p2 = 0.5; Additional file 2, Model 2) and showed that ES worsened over time from 0.69 at Week 12 to 2.93 at Week 104 when non-DMARD-IR patients continued to receive one traditional DMARD (Fig. 6; Table 4). Comparative analysis showed no difference in rate of deterioration was expected between LEF and MTX (Additional file 2, Model 4).
Fig. 6

Mean change from baseline in ES in the non-DMARD-IR population. Data are as observed in individual studies and estimated with meta-analysis. Solid line represents the mean estimate for a given treatment arm and the dashed lines show the corresponding 95 % credible interval. DMARD: disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; DMARD-IR: patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with a history of inadequate response to DMARDs who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD; ES: Erosion Subscore; LEF: leflunomide; MTX: methotrexate; SSZ: sulfasalazine

For the JSN and the Larsen scores, linear meta-analysis models were appropriate to reflect the deterioration up to 104 weeks (Fig.  7 and Table 4; Additional file 2, Model 1). One study evaluated treatment with NSAIDs only and reported a mean standardized change from baseline in the Larsen score of 0.01 up to 52 weeks [54].
Fig. 7

Mean change from baseline in JSN Subscore in the non-DMARD-IR. Data are as observed in individual studies and estimated with meta-analysis. Solid line represents the mean estimate for a given treatment arm and the dashed lines show the corresponding 95 % credible interval. DMARD: disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; DMARD-IR: patient population with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with a history of inadequate response to DMARDs who are currently treated with one (other) non-biologic DMARD; JSN: Joint Space Narrowing; LEF: leflunomide; MTX: methotrexate; SSZ: sulfasalazine

Discussion

In this study, the development of joint structural deterioration among minimally treated patients with moderate-to-severe RA was estimated based on currently available published data. Estimates were obtained for two populations: a DMARD-IR population that consisted of patients who showed previous inadequate response with non-biologic DMARDs, and a non-DMARD-IR population that consisted of both non-biologic DMARD-naïve and non-biologic DMARD-experienced patients without an inadequate response to any DMARD. In the identified studies, the minimally treated DMARD-IR patients were receiving monotherapy with MTX, AZA, SSZ, or gold salts, with most patients receiving MTX. In the included non-DMARD-IR studies, DMARD treatment consisted of MTX, SSZ, LEF, CSA, HCQ, or D-penicillamine. Only one study was identified in which patients were treated with NSAIDs only, but this study was not included in the meta-analysis. For both populations, treatment with one DMARD resulted in deterioration of joint structure over a 2-year period as measured with the TSS, ES, JSN, and Larsen scores. Under the assumption that the minimal clinically important difference is about 1 % of the maximum of the possible TSS and Larson scores, the estimated changes over a 2 year period in terms of TSS can be considered relevant, in particular for the DMARD-IR population [64, 65]. Depending on the time assessed and the measure examined, the rate of deterioration in the DARD-IR population was about 1.5- to 2-times the rate of deterioration in the non-DMARD-IR population. Based on RCT evidence, the rate of deterioration with AZA was greater than with MTX in the DMARD-IR population. For the non-DMARD-IR population, LEF and MTX showed a similar progression over time.

The greater rate of deterioration observed in the DMARD-IR population compared with the non-DMARD-IR population makes sense, given the negative impact a history of non-biologic-DMARD failure should have on the effectiveness of continuation with a non-biologic DMARD. Related underlying causes for the difference in progression rates are possibly differences in disease duration, rheumatoid factor status, and disease activity.

However, it is important to note that for a subset of the identified studies it was not clear whether the patients were exclusively DMARD-IR. These studies were assigned to the non-DMARD-IR group to make sure that the DMARD-IR group was as homogenous as possible. As such, it is possible that the defined non-DMARD-IR population partly consisted of patients who might have a history of failed treatment with a DMARD. This possible misclassification might have overestimated the deterioration in this group, and should be kept in mind when comparing the degree of joint deterioration in DMARD-IR versus non-DMARD-IR populations.

The relevant studies were identified by means of a systematic search of the literature and included both RCTs and observational designs. Given the objective of the meta-analysis, only those arms of the comparative studies were selected in which patients were treated with NSAIDs or a single DMARD (with or without additional NSAIDs or corticosteroid use). Although many RCTs were included, often only one treatment arm (e.g., MTX-only arm from biologic trials in DMARD-IR populations) was used. As such, there was no difference in the way evidence obtained from observational studies and RCTs was handled. RCTs in which different single non-biologic DMARDs were compared were included and provided the evidence to allow comparisons between DMARDs. Comparative analyses were only possible for AZA versus MTX and for LEF versus MTX. Although RCTs provided comparative data for some other DMARDs, these were not part of a connected network of RCTs and could not, therefore, be used in the planned analyses.

Many of the MTX treatment arms comprising the DMARD-IR population were obtained from RCTs in which a biologic DMARD was evaluated. In the included studies the patients in these MTX arms were not assigned to biologic treatment within the study time horizon; only the MTX dose could be increased in case of non-response. Hence, the observed structural deterioration is a reflection of the limitations of MTX in this population.

The included studies reported joint deterioration at different time points, with outcomes reported up to 2 years of follow-up. With the meta-analysis models used, all the available time points were analyzed simultaneously to estimate a curve reflecting joint structural deterioration over time. It cannot be assumed that extrapolation of these curves beyond this 2-year period is a valid representation of joint structure deterioration over the longer term. The vast majority of studies used the modified Sharp score to analyze joint erosion and space narrowing. The modified score includes feet in the radiographic assessment, in addition to the scoring of wrists and hands as with the original Sharp score [610]. The study by Hamdy [21] used the earlier version of the Sharp score. Despite the differences in total score, we included the study by Hamdy in the analysis of the DMARD-IR population. We do not expect this variation in total score to be a cause of large between-study heterogeneity in development of TSS over time. In fact the observed TSS reported by Hamdy is very consistent with the other studies included in that analysis (Fig. 2).

The included studies were characterized by variability in patient characteristics, especially among the non-DMARD-IR studies. As a result, heterogeneity in joint structural deterioration over time was observed. In order to capture this heterogeneity, random-effects models were used; however, these models do not explain the heterogeneity. In the future, it will be of interest to evaluate whether certain patient characteristics are associated with differences in joint deterioration. However, meta-regression analysis where study level data is used to evaluate the impact of patient characteristics on outcomes or treatment effects can be prone to ecological bias [66, 67]. For such an evaluation it is preferred to have access to patient-level data. In this context it would be interesting to evaluate the independent effect of steroid use, disease duration, rheumatoid factor status, and disease activity on joint deterioration, for example.

There is evidence that the patients treated in biologic trials have changed substantially over the past decade. [68]. This is important to consider when using the findings of this meta-analysis to help interpret results of new placebo-controlled trials of biologics. In this context, a limitation of the current analysis is that any potentially relevant studies published after 2009 were not included.

Conclusions

Based on the currently available published evidence, it can be concluded that minimal treatment of RA with one non-biologic DMARD results in a high risk of deterioration of joint structures among patients who have shown an inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs, as well as patients that have not (yet) shown an inadequate response. This finding is of relevance when assessing the relative benefit of arresting joint damage with new biologic agents based on findings of placebo-controlled trials in which patients randomized to placebo are ‘rescued’ with active therapy within 6 months.

Abbreviations

AZA: azathioprine; CFB: change from baseline; CrI: credible interval; CRP: C-reactive protein; CSA: ciclosporin A; DIC: deviance information criterion; DMARD: disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; DMARD-IR: inadequate responder to DMARD therapy; ES: Erosion Subscore; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire; HCQ: hydroxychloroquine; JSN: Joint Space Narrowing; LEF: leflunomide; MTX: methotrexate; NSAID: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SD: standard deviation; SSZ: sulfasalazine; TSS: Total Sharp Score

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Editorial support was provided by Martin Goulding, PhD, at Complete Medical Communications and was funded by Pfizer Inc.

Funding

This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. As specified above, all authors were funded by Pfizer either as consultants or employees and Pfizer were involved in the decision to submit this manuscript for publication.

Availability of data and materials

All data supporting the findings is contained in the manuscript. Two supplementary files include the literature search strategy and statistical models used for the meta-analysis.

Authors’ contributions

JPJ designed the study, performed the analyses, and co-wrote the manuscript. MCV coordinated and helped conduct the systematic literature review and data extraction, performed part of the analyses, and co-wrote the manuscript. JCC made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of data, and revised the article critically for important intellectual content. JDB, SHZ, and GCW made substantial contributions to the study design, interpretation of results, and development of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

At the time of performing the analysis presented this manuscript, JPJ and MCV were employees of Mapi and were paid consultants to Pfizer Inc in connection with the manuscript’s development. All other authors are employees of Pfizer Inc.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable as this is a meta-analysis of published data.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Tufts University School of Medicine
(2)
Formerly at Mapi
(3)
Pfizer Medicines Development Group
(4)

References

  1. American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Rheumatoid Arthritis Guidelines. Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2002 update. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(2):328–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Ledingham J, Deighton C, British Society for Rheumatology Standards, Guidelines and Audit Working Group. Update on the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines for prescribing TNFalpha blockers in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (update of previous guidelines of April 2001). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005;44(2):157–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, Anuntiyo J, Finney C, Curtis JR, Paulus HE, Mudano A, Pisu M, Elkins-Melton M, Outman R, Allison JJ, Suarez Almazor M, Bridges Jr SL, Chatham WW, Hochberg M, MacLean C, Mikuls T, Moreland LW, O’Dell J, Turkiewicz AM, Furst DE, American College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(6):762–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Larsen A. A radiological method for grading the severity of rheumatoid arthritis, Academic dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki; 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Larsen A, Dale K, Eek M. Radiographic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis and related conditions by standard reference films. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1977;18(4):481–91.Google Scholar
  6. Sharp JT, Lidsky MD, Collins LC, Moreland J. Methods of scoring the progression of radiologic changes in rheumatoid arthritis. Correlation of radiologic, clinical and laboratory abnormalities. Arthritis Rheum. 1971;14(6):706–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sharp JT, Lidsky MD, Duffy J. Clinical responses during gold therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Changes in synovitis, radiologically detectable erosive lesions, serum proteins, and serologic abnormalities. Arthritis Rheum. 1982;25(5):540–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Sharp JT, Young DY, Bluhm GB, Brook A, Brower AC, Corbett M, Decker JL, Genant HK, Gofton JP, Goodman N, et al. How many joints in the hands and wrists should be included in a score of radiologic abnormalities used to assess rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28(12):1326–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. van der Heijde D. How to read radiographs according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(3):743–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. van der Heijde D, Boers M, Lassere M. Methodological issues in radiographic scoring methods in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(3):726–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Jansen JP, Vieira MC, Cope S. Network meta-analysis of longitudinal data using fractional polynomials. Stat Med. 2015;34(15):2294–311.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10(4):277–303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Sauerbrei W, Royston P. Building multivariable prognostic and diagnostic models: transformation of the predictors by using fractional polynomials. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 1999;162(1):71–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Royston P, Altman DG. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling. Appl Statist. 1994;43(3):429–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Bagnardi V, Zambon A, Quatto P, Corrao G. Flexible meta-regression functions for modeling aggregate dose response data, with an application to alcohol and mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(11):1077–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dempster AP. The direct use of likelihood for significance testing. Stat Comput. 1997;7(4):247–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 2002;64(4):583–639.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, Lunn D. WinBUGS user manual version 14. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2002.Google Scholar
  20. Breedveld FC, Emery P, Keystone E, Patel K, Furst DE, Kalden JR, St Clair EW, Weisman M, Smolen J, Lipsky PE, Maini RN. Infliximab in active early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(2):149–55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamdy H, McKendry RJ, Mierins E, Liver JA. Low-dose methotrexate compared with azathioprine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A twenty-four-week controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1987;30(4):361–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeurissen ME, Boerbooms AM, van de Putte LB, Doesburg WH, Lemmens A. Influence of methotrexate and azathioprine on radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, double-blind study. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(12):999–1004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Keystone EC, Kavanaugh AF, Sharp JT, Tannenbaum H, Hua Y, Teoh LS, Fischkoff SA, Chartash EK. Radiographic, clinical, and functional outcomes of treatment with adalimumab a human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate therapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(5):1400–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Keystone E, Heijde D, Mason Jr D, Landewé R, Vollenhoven RV, Combe B, Emery P, Strand V, Mease P, Desai C, Pavelka K. Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is significantly more effective than placebo plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a fifty-two-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(11):3319–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lipsky PE, van der Heijde DM, St Clair EW, Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Weisman M, Emery P, Feldmann M, Harriman GR, Maini RN, Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group. Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Anti-tumor necrosis factor trial in rheumatoid arthritis with concomitant therapy study group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1594–602.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Maini RN, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Furst D, Weisman MH, St Clair EW, Keenan GF, van der Heijde D, Marsters PA, Lipsky PE, Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group. Sustained improvement over two years in physical function, structural damage, and signs and symptoms among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab and methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(4):1051–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sany J, Kaliski S, Couret M, Cuchacovich M, Daures JP. Radiologic progression during intramuscular methotrexate treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990;17(12):1636–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Smolen J, Landewé RB, Mease P, Brzezicki J, Mason D, Luijtens K, van Vollenhoven RF, Kavanaugh A, Schiff M, Burmester GR, Strand V, Vencovsky J, van der Heijde D. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: the RAPID 2 study. A randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):797–804.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Rodriguez-Valverde V, Codreanu C, Bolosiu H, Melo-Gomes J, Tornero-Molina J, Wajdula J, Pedersen R, Fatenejad S, TEMPO Study Investigators. Comparison of etanercept and methotrexate, alone and combined, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: two-year clinical and radiographic results from the TEMPO study, a double-blind, randomized trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(4):1063–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. van Holten J, Pavelka K, Vencovsky J, Stahl H, Rozman B, Genovese M, Kivitz AJ, Alvaro J, Nuki G, Furst DE, Herrero-Beaumont G, McInnes IB, Musikic P, Tak PP. A multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled phase II study of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):64–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wick MC, Lindblad S, Weiss RJ, Klareskog L, van Vollenhoven RF. Estimated prediagnosis radiological progression: an important tool for studying the effects of early disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):134–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, Tesser JR, Schiff MH, Keystone EC, Genovese MC, Wasko MC, Moreland LW, Weaver AL, Markenson J, Finck BK. A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1586–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Boiardi L, Macchioni P, Meliconi R, Pulsatelli L, Facchini A, Salvarani C. Relationship between serum RANTES levels and radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with methotrexate. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1999;17(4):419–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Breedveld FC, Weisman MH, Kavanaugh AF, Cohen SB, Pavelka K, van Vollenhoven R, Sharp J, Perez JL, Spencer-Green GT. The PREMIER study: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(1):26–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Choy EH, Smith CM, Farewell V, Walker D, Hassell A, Chau L, Scott DL, CARDERA (Combination Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early Rheumatoid Arhritis) Trial Group. Factorial randomised controlled trial of glucocorticoids and combination disease modifying drugs in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(5):656–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Cohen S, Cannon GW, Schiff M, Weaver A, Fox R, Olsen N, Furst D, Sharp J, Moreland L, Caldwell J, Kaine J, Strand V. Two-year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate. Utilization of Leflunomide in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial Investigator Group. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(9):1984–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Cohen SB, Dore RK, Lane NE, Ory PA, Peterfy CG, Sharp JT, van der Heijde D, Zhou L, Tsuji W, Newmark R, Denosumab Rheumatoid Arthritis Study Group. Denosumab treatment effects on structural damage, bone mineral density, and bone turnover in rheumatoid arthritis: a twelve-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(5):1299–309.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Emery P, Breedveld FC, Lemmel EM, Kaltwasser JP, Dawes PT, Gömör B, Van Den Bosch F, Nordström D, Bjorneboe O, Dahl R, Horslev-Petersen K, Rodriguez De La Serna A, Molloy M, Tikly M, Oed C, Rosenburg R, Loew-Friedrich I. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(6):655–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Emery P, Breedveld FC, Hall S, Durez P, Chang DJ, Robertson D, Emery P, Breedveld FC, Hall S, Durez P, Chang DJ, Robertson D, Singh A, Pedersen RD, Koenig AS, Freundlich B. Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9636):375–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Emery P, Genovese MC, van Vollenhoven R, Sharp JT, Patra K, Sasso EH. Less radiographic progression with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy across the spectrum of clinical response in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(7):1429–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ferraccioli GF, Della Casa-Alberghi O, Marubini E, Priolo F, Mathieu A, Fantini F, Cutolo M, Pasero G. Is the control of disease progression within our grasp? Review of the GRISAR study. Gruppo Reumatologi Italiani Studio Artrite Reumatoide. Br J Rheumatol. 1996;35 Suppl 2:8–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ferraccioli GF, Bambara LM, Ferraris M, Perpignano G, Cattaneo R, Porzio F, Accardo S, Mattara L, Zoppini A, Benucci M, Ostuni PA, Pasero G. Effects of cyclosporin on joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis. The Italian Rheumatologists Study Group on Rheumatoid Arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1997;15 Suppl 17:S83–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Goldbach-Mansky R, Wilson M, Fleischmann R, Olsen N, Silverfield J, Kempf P, Kivitz A, Sherrer Y, Pucino F, Csako G, Costello R, Pham TH, Snyder C, van der Heijde D, Tao X, Wesley R, Lipsky PE. Comparison of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F versus sulfasalazine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):229–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Hannonen P, Möttönen T, Hakola M, Oka M. Sulfasalazine in early rheumatoid arthiritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36(11):1501–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hetland ML, Stengaard-Pedersen K, Junker P, Lottenburger T, Ellingsen T, Andersen LS, Hansen I, Skjødt H, Pedersen JK, Lauridsen UB, Svendsen A, Tarp U, Pødenphant J, Hansen G, Lindegaard H, de Carvalho A, Østergaard M, Hørslev-Petersen K, CIMESTRA Study Group. Combination treatment with methotrexate, cyclosporine, and intraarticular betamethasone compared with methotrexate and intraarticular betamethasone in early active rheumatoid arthritis: an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(5):1401–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hetland ML, Stengaard-Pedersen K, Junker P, Lottenburger T, Hansen I, Andersen LS, Tarp U, Svendsen A, Pedersen JK, Skjødt H, Lauridsen UB, Ellingsen T, Hansen GV, Lindegaard H, Vestergaard A, Jurik AG, Østergaard M, Hørslev-Petersen K, CIMESTRA study group. Aggressive combination therapy with intra-articular glucocorticoid injections and conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in early rheumatoid arthritis: second-year clinical and radiographic results from the CIMESTRA study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(6):815–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Landewé RB, Boers M, Verhoeven AC, Westhovens R, van de Laar MA, Markusse HM, van Denderen JC, Westedt ML, Peeters AJ, Dijkmans BA, Jacobs P, Boonen A, van der Heijde DM, van der Linden S. COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(2):347–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Larsen A, Kvien TK, Schattenkirchner M, Rau R, Scott DL, Smolen JS, Rozman B, Westhovens R, Tikly M, Oed C, Rosenburg R, European Leflunomide Study Group. Slowing of disease progression in rheumatoid arthritis patients during long-term treatment with leflunomide or sulfasalazine. Scand J Rheumatol. 2001;30(3):135–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Maravic M, Bologna C, Daures JP, Jorgensen C, Combe B, Sany J. Radiologic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(2):262–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Marchesoni A, Battafarano N, Arreghini M, Pellerito R, Cagnoli M, Prudente P, Cerase A, Priolo F, Tosi S. Step-down approach using either cyclosporin A or methotrexate as maintenance therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47(1):59–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Peltomaa R, Paimela L, Helve T, Leirisalo-Repo M. Comparison of intramuscular gold and sulphasalazine in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis A one year prospective study. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24(6):330–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sanmarti R, Gomez A, Ercilla G, Gratacos J, Larrosa M, Suris X, Vinas O, Salvador G, Munoz-Gomez J, Canete JD. Radiological progression in early rheumatoid arthritis after DMARDS: a one-year follow-up study in a clinical setting. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42(9):1044–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Sarzi-Puttini P, D’Ingianna E, Fumagalli M, Scarpellini M, Fiorini T, Chérié-Lignière EL, Panni B, Fiorentini F, Corbelli V, Beyene NB, Mastaglio C, Severi C, Locati M, Cazzola M, Menozzi G, Monti G, Saccardo F, Alfieri G, Atzeni F. An open, randomized comparison study of cyclosporine A, cyclosporine A + methotrexate and cyclosporine A + hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of early severe rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2005;25(1):15–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Scott DL, Dawes PT, Fowler PD, Grindulis KA, Shadforth M, Bacon P. Anti-rheumatic drugs and joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis. Q J Med. 1985;54(213):49–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott DL, Dawes PT, Tunn E, Fowler PD, Shadforth MF, Fisher J, Clarke S, Collins M, Jones P, Popert AJ, et al. Combination therapy with gold and hydroxychloroquine in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Br J Rheumatol. 1989;28(2):128–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Scott DL, Greenwood A, Davies J, Maddison PJ, Maddison MC, Hall ND. Radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis: do D-penicillamine and hydroxychloroquine have different effects? Br J Rheumatol. 1990;29(2):126–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith PR, Brown GM, Meyers OL. An open comparative study of auranofin vs. gold sodium thiomalate. J Rheumatol. 1982;8:190–6.Google Scholar
  58. St Clair EW, van der Heijde DM, Smolen JS, Maini RN, Bathon JM, Emery P, Keystone E, Schiff M, Kalden JR, Wang B, Dewoody K, Weiss R, Baker D, Active-Controlled Study of Patients Receiving Infliximab for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis of Early Onset Study Group. Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(11):3432–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Strand V, Cohen S, Schiff M, Weaver A, Fleischmann R, Cannon G, Fox R, Moreland L, Olsen N, Furst D, Caldwell J, Kaine J, Sharp J, Hurley F, Loew-Friedrich I. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(21):2542–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Svensson B, Pettersson H. Reumacon (CPH82) showed similar x-ray progression and clinical effects as methotrexate in a two year comparative study on patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2003;32(2):83–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Svensson B, Boonen A, Albertsson K, van der Heijde D, Keller C, Hafström I. Low-dose prednisolone in addition to the initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis reduces joint destruction and increases the remission rate: a two-year randomized trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(11):3360–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Riel PL, Larsen A, Van de Putte LB, Gribnau FW. Effects of aurothioglucose and auranofin on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 1986;5(3):359–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wassenberg S, Rau R, Steinfeld P, Zeidler H. Very low-dose prednisolone in early rheumatoid arthritis retards radiographic progression over two years: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(11):3371–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Bruynesteyn K, van der Heijde D, Boers M, et al. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in rheumatoid arthritis joint damage of the Sharp/van der Heijde and Larsen/Scott scoring methods by clinical experts and comparison with the smallest detectable difference. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(4):913–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sokka T. Radiographic scoring in rheumatoid arthritis: a short introduction to the methods. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):166–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Morgenstern H. Uses of ecologic analysis on epidemiologic research. Am J Public Health. 1982;72(12):1336–43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient-versus group-level meta-regression for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med. 2002;21(3):371–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Rahman MU, Buchanan J, Doyle MK, Hsia EC, Gathany T, Parasuraman S, Aletaha D, Matteson EL, Conaghan PG, Keystone E, van der Heijde D, Smolen JS. Changes in patient characteristics in anti-tumour necrosis factor clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis: results of an analysis of the literature over the past 16 years. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1631–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016