Effectiveness of systematic monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity in daily practice: a multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial

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.

[1]  M. Prevoo,et al.  Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[2]  P. van Riel,et al.  Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. , 1998, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[3]  Sample size in guidelines trials. , 2000, Family practice.

[4]  J. Bland,et al.  Sample size in guideline trials , 2000 .

[5]  F. Wolfe,et al.  Consensus recommendations for the assessment and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[6]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  The relationship between disease activity, joint destruction, and functional capacity over the course of rheumatoid arthritis. , 2001, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[7]  H. Paulus,et al.  Management of rheumatoid arthritis: the historical context. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[8]  P. van Riel,et al.  Health Assessment Questionnaire modifications: is standardisation needed? , 2001, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[9]  R. Yood,et al.  Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2002 Update. , 2002, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[10]  G. Stucki,et al.  The merits of monitoring: should we follow all our rheumatoid arthritis patients in daily practice? , 2002, Rheumatology.

[11]  T. Langenegger,et al.  Effectiveness of a measurement feedback system on outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: a controlled clinical trial , 2003, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[12]  P. V. van Riel,et al.  Influence of guideline adherence on outcome in a randomised controlled trial on the efficacy of methotrexate with folate supplementation in rheumatoid arthritis , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[13]  Maarten Boers,et al.  The relationship between disease activity and radiologic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal analysis. , 2004, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[14]  J. Twisk,et al.  Design and analysis of a randomized controlled trial testing the effects of clinical decision support on the management of rheumatoid arthritis. , 2004, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[15]  A. McMahon,et al.  Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial , 2004, The Lancet.