Factors predicting response to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: the importance of disease duration.

OBJECTIVE To use individual patient data from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials to identify factors that affect the response to treatment as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for improvement (the "ACR response"). METHODS Primary trial data from 14 diverse, randomized, controlled trials of second-line drugs or devices in RA were analyzed. The trials included 11 methotrexate (MTX) trials (5 placebo controlled and 6 comparative, of which 2 were unpublished), 1 combination trial of cyclosporine plus MTX, 1 induction trial of a combination treatment in early RA (the COBRA trial), and 1 placebo-controlled trial of a new device (Prosorba). Both patient factors and disease activity measures (primarily, items from the ACR core criteria set) were available. RESULTS A total of 1,435 patients (549 in placebo-controlled trials, 886 in comparative trials) were studied. In both active treatment and placebo groups, disease duration had a strong effect on the likelihood of patient response (e.g., with any active treatment, the response rate was 53% for patients with < or =1 year of disease, 43% for 1-2 years' disease duration, 44% for 2-5 years, 38% for 5-10 years, and 35% for > 10 years; P = 0.001). Decreasing response with greater disease duration was seen during treatment with most of the individual active drugs, as well as with placebo. Other factors decreasing the rate of response to treatment included any prior use of a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), higher disease functional class (according to the Steinbrocker criteria), low disease activity (according to patient's global assessment), and female sex. Each ACR core set variable exhibited a diminished response to treatment in patients with long-standing disease. The difference between active treatment and placebo response rates was not affected by disease duration nor by other factors associated with the ACR response. CONCLUSION RA patients with longer disease duration do not respond as well to treatment compared with patients with early disease, and female sex, prior DMARD use, disease functional class, and disease activity also have effects on the likelihood of patient response to treatment. This has implications for trial interpretation and for the clinical expectations of RA patients.

[1]  J. Block,et al.  The Prosorba column for treatment of refractory rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. , 1999, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[2]  D. Furst,et al.  Increasing methotrexate effect with increasing dose in the treatment of resistant rheumatoid arthritis. , 1989, The Journal of rheumatology.

[3]  H. Holman,et al.  Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. , 1980, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[4]  O. Steinbrocker,et al.  Therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1949, Journal of the American Medical Association.

[5]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis , 1997, The Lancet.

[6]  J J Anderson,et al.  American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[7]  R. E. Small,et al.  Low‐dose methotrexate compared with auranofin in adult rheumatoid arthritis , 1990 .

[8]  F. Epstein,et al.  Rheumatoid arthritis. Pathophysiology and implications for therapy. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  M. Guttadauria,et al.  Comparison of low-dose oral pulse methotrexate and placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. , 1985, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[10]  M. Suarez‐Almazor,et al.  A randomized controlled trial of parenteral methotrexate compared with sodium aurothiomalate (Myochrysine) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.

[11]  J. Karsh,et al.  Gold sodium thiomalate compared to low dose methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis--a randomized, double blind 26-week trial. , 1989, The Journal of rheumatology.

[12]  M. Urowitz,et al.  Comparison of azathioprine, methotrexate, and the combination of both in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. , 1992, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[13]  P. Emery,et al.  Early rheumatoid arthritis: time to aim for remission? , 1995, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[14]  Hassan Khaled Hamdy,et al.  Low-dose methotrexate compared with azathioprine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A twenty-four-week controlled clinical trial. , 1987, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[15]  U. Brodin,et al.  Patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefit from early 2nd line therapy: 5 year followup of a prospective double blind placebo controlled study. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[16]  C. Kwoh,et al.  Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Clinical Guidelines. , 1996, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[17]  D. Felson,et al.  Problems and suggested solutions in creating an archive of clinical trials data to permit later meta-analysis: an example of methotrexate trials in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Combination therapy with cyclosporine and methotrexate in severe rheumatoid arthritis. The Methotrexate-Cyclosporine Combination Study Group. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  M. Weinblatt,et al.  Efficacy of low-dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  A. van der Heide,et al.  Prediction of progression of radiologic damage in newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.