User login
MADRID – Defining remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis depends on their clinical status, not on the presence or absence of inflammatory signals on ultrasound or MRI, many rheumatologists now agree.
The strong consensus that’s formed against using imaging as a criterion for RA remission was apparent at the European Congress of Rheumatology during presentation of a pending update to the EULAR recommendations for managing RA, as well as in at least two separate, invited lectures.
“Imaging is out,” proclaimed Josef S. Smolen, MD, as he spoke at the congress about the pending RA management revisions. This condemnation of imaging by ultrasound or MRI as an unsafe and misleading target for RA treatment by Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, was perhaps the most forceful statement he made while presenting the draft revision of EULAR’s RA recommendations.
The case for using ultrasound or MR to find inflammatory signatures in joints that can function as treatment targets collapsed earlier in 2019 with publication of results from IMAGINE-RA (An MRI-guided Treatment Strategy to Prevent Disease Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis), a multicenter Danish study that randomized 200 RA patients in remission to either a conventional, disease activity–guided treatment target (in this case the DAS28-CRP [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints plus C-reactive protein]), or a treatment target that included the conventional clinical target plus treating to eliminate any bone marrow edema visualized by MRI. After 24 months of treatment, the prevalence of clinical remission and MRI remission was about the same in both arms, with no statistically significant differences. But serious adverse events in 6 patients managed by their clinical assessment compared favorably against 17 among those managed to an imaging remission endpoint, a difference that strongly hinted at dangerous overtreatment of the imaging-guided patients (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72).
The failure of MRI assessment of inflammation to improve RA treatment in IMAGINE-RA came against the backdrop of two 2016 reports that documented the same limitation when using ultrasound to detect joint inflammation and guide treatment in RA patients. The TaSER (Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) study randomized 111 patients with newly diagnosed RA or undifferentiated arthritis to conventional disease activity assessment, DAS28–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or to that plus assessment by musculoskeletal ultrasound, and found no difference in clinical or imaging outcomes (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jun;75[6]:1043-50). The second report, ARCTIC (Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis), randomized 238 RA patients to either a tight RA control strategy based on DAS alone or based on DAS plus serial examination of joints with ultrasound. The results showed that, after 16-24 months on treatment, the two strategies produced no significant difference in the rates of sustained RA remission with no radiographic damage or swollen joints detected (BMJ. 2016 Aug 16;354:i4205).
The results from these three studies have shown that “not all inflammation seen by ultrasound or MR is pathological,” and that “no imaging technique or biomarker has shown superiority to clinical assessment as a treat-to-target” goal, Sofia Ramiro, MD, said in a talk at the congress during which she reviewed this evidence.
“Treat-to-target that takes imaging into account is high risk because it exposes patients to overtreatment, which has costs in the broad sense, safety included,” said Dr. Ramiro, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “I think that systematically evaluating a patient’s joint with imaging won’t have additional value, and is the wrong approach.”
A similar assessment came from Stefan Siebert, MD, during a separate lecture during the congress. He highlighted that use of ultrasound or MRI to guide treatment in these three studies consistently led to substantially higher rates of treatment escalation, treatment with biologics, and in two of the three studies a notable increase in serious adverse events. Treatment with a biologic drug was roughly twice as frequent in the imaging-guided arms of TaSER and ARCTIC, compared with the control arms in those studies, and in IMAGINE-RA, the use of a biologic drug occurred more than 20 times more often in the imaging arms, he noted. And in both TaSER and IMAGINE-RA the rate of serious adverse events was more than doubled in the imaging arms, compared with the controls.
“Just identifying inflammation [in a joint] is not enough to make a diagnosis. Inflammation is normal process, and finding it does not identify a pathological state,” noted Dr. Siebert, a rheumatologist at the University of Glasgow. “Imaging leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment when physicians use imaging inappropriately,” he concluded.
Dr. Smolen has been a consultant to several drug companies. Dr. Ramiro has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi, and she has received research funding from Merck. Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
MADRID – Defining remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis depends on their clinical status, not on the presence or absence of inflammatory signals on ultrasound or MRI, many rheumatologists now agree.
The strong consensus that’s formed against using imaging as a criterion for RA remission was apparent at the European Congress of Rheumatology during presentation of a pending update to the EULAR recommendations for managing RA, as well as in at least two separate, invited lectures.
“Imaging is out,” proclaimed Josef S. Smolen, MD, as he spoke at the congress about the pending RA management revisions. This condemnation of imaging by ultrasound or MRI as an unsafe and misleading target for RA treatment by Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, was perhaps the most forceful statement he made while presenting the draft revision of EULAR’s RA recommendations.
The case for using ultrasound or MR to find inflammatory signatures in joints that can function as treatment targets collapsed earlier in 2019 with publication of results from IMAGINE-RA (An MRI-guided Treatment Strategy to Prevent Disease Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis), a multicenter Danish study that randomized 200 RA patients in remission to either a conventional, disease activity–guided treatment target (in this case the DAS28-CRP [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints plus C-reactive protein]), or a treatment target that included the conventional clinical target plus treating to eliminate any bone marrow edema visualized by MRI. After 24 months of treatment, the prevalence of clinical remission and MRI remission was about the same in both arms, with no statistically significant differences. But serious adverse events in 6 patients managed by their clinical assessment compared favorably against 17 among those managed to an imaging remission endpoint, a difference that strongly hinted at dangerous overtreatment of the imaging-guided patients (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72).
The failure of MRI assessment of inflammation to improve RA treatment in IMAGINE-RA came against the backdrop of two 2016 reports that documented the same limitation when using ultrasound to detect joint inflammation and guide treatment in RA patients. The TaSER (Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) study randomized 111 patients with newly diagnosed RA or undifferentiated arthritis to conventional disease activity assessment, DAS28–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or to that plus assessment by musculoskeletal ultrasound, and found no difference in clinical or imaging outcomes (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jun;75[6]:1043-50). The second report, ARCTIC (Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis), randomized 238 RA patients to either a tight RA control strategy based on DAS alone or based on DAS plus serial examination of joints with ultrasound. The results showed that, after 16-24 months on treatment, the two strategies produced no significant difference in the rates of sustained RA remission with no radiographic damage or swollen joints detected (BMJ. 2016 Aug 16;354:i4205).
The results from these three studies have shown that “not all inflammation seen by ultrasound or MR is pathological,” and that “no imaging technique or biomarker has shown superiority to clinical assessment as a treat-to-target” goal, Sofia Ramiro, MD, said in a talk at the congress during which she reviewed this evidence.
“Treat-to-target that takes imaging into account is high risk because it exposes patients to overtreatment, which has costs in the broad sense, safety included,” said Dr. Ramiro, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “I think that systematically evaluating a patient’s joint with imaging won’t have additional value, and is the wrong approach.”
A similar assessment came from Stefan Siebert, MD, during a separate lecture during the congress. He highlighted that use of ultrasound or MRI to guide treatment in these three studies consistently led to substantially higher rates of treatment escalation, treatment with biologics, and in two of the three studies a notable increase in serious adverse events. Treatment with a biologic drug was roughly twice as frequent in the imaging-guided arms of TaSER and ARCTIC, compared with the control arms in those studies, and in IMAGINE-RA, the use of a biologic drug occurred more than 20 times more often in the imaging arms, he noted. And in both TaSER and IMAGINE-RA the rate of serious adverse events was more than doubled in the imaging arms, compared with the controls.
“Just identifying inflammation [in a joint] is not enough to make a diagnosis. Inflammation is normal process, and finding it does not identify a pathological state,” noted Dr. Siebert, a rheumatologist at the University of Glasgow. “Imaging leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment when physicians use imaging inappropriately,” he concluded.
Dr. Smolen has been a consultant to several drug companies. Dr. Ramiro has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi, and she has received research funding from Merck. Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
MADRID – Defining remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis depends on their clinical status, not on the presence or absence of inflammatory signals on ultrasound or MRI, many rheumatologists now agree.
The strong consensus that’s formed against using imaging as a criterion for RA remission was apparent at the European Congress of Rheumatology during presentation of a pending update to the EULAR recommendations for managing RA, as well as in at least two separate, invited lectures.
“Imaging is out,” proclaimed Josef S. Smolen, MD, as he spoke at the congress about the pending RA management revisions. This condemnation of imaging by ultrasound or MRI as an unsafe and misleading target for RA treatment by Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, was perhaps the most forceful statement he made while presenting the draft revision of EULAR’s RA recommendations.
The case for using ultrasound or MR to find inflammatory signatures in joints that can function as treatment targets collapsed earlier in 2019 with publication of results from IMAGINE-RA (An MRI-guided Treatment Strategy to Prevent Disease Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis), a multicenter Danish study that randomized 200 RA patients in remission to either a conventional, disease activity–guided treatment target (in this case the DAS28-CRP [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints plus C-reactive protein]), or a treatment target that included the conventional clinical target plus treating to eliminate any bone marrow edema visualized by MRI. After 24 months of treatment, the prevalence of clinical remission and MRI remission was about the same in both arms, with no statistically significant differences. But serious adverse events in 6 patients managed by their clinical assessment compared favorably against 17 among those managed to an imaging remission endpoint, a difference that strongly hinted at dangerous overtreatment of the imaging-guided patients (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72).
The failure of MRI assessment of inflammation to improve RA treatment in IMAGINE-RA came against the backdrop of two 2016 reports that documented the same limitation when using ultrasound to detect joint inflammation and guide treatment in RA patients. The TaSER (Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) study randomized 111 patients with newly diagnosed RA or undifferentiated arthritis to conventional disease activity assessment, DAS28–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or to that plus assessment by musculoskeletal ultrasound, and found no difference in clinical or imaging outcomes (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jun;75[6]:1043-50). The second report, ARCTIC (Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis), randomized 238 RA patients to either a tight RA control strategy based on DAS alone or based on DAS plus serial examination of joints with ultrasound. The results showed that, after 16-24 months on treatment, the two strategies produced no significant difference in the rates of sustained RA remission with no radiographic damage or swollen joints detected (BMJ. 2016 Aug 16;354:i4205).
The results from these three studies have shown that “not all inflammation seen by ultrasound or MR is pathological,” and that “no imaging technique or biomarker has shown superiority to clinical assessment as a treat-to-target” goal, Sofia Ramiro, MD, said in a talk at the congress during which she reviewed this evidence.
“Treat-to-target that takes imaging into account is high risk because it exposes patients to overtreatment, which has costs in the broad sense, safety included,” said Dr. Ramiro, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “I think that systematically evaluating a patient’s joint with imaging won’t have additional value, and is the wrong approach.”
A similar assessment came from Stefan Siebert, MD, during a separate lecture during the congress. He highlighted that use of ultrasound or MRI to guide treatment in these three studies consistently led to substantially higher rates of treatment escalation, treatment with biologics, and in two of the three studies a notable increase in serious adverse events. Treatment with a biologic drug was roughly twice as frequent in the imaging-guided arms of TaSER and ARCTIC, compared with the control arms in those studies, and in IMAGINE-RA, the use of a biologic drug occurred more than 20 times more often in the imaging arms, he noted. And in both TaSER and IMAGINE-RA the rate of serious adverse events was more than doubled in the imaging arms, compared with the controls.
“Just identifying inflammation [in a joint] is not enough to make a diagnosis. Inflammation is normal process, and finding it does not identify a pathological state,” noted Dr. Siebert, a rheumatologist at the University of Glasgow. “Imaging leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment when physicians use imaging inappropriately,” he concluded.
Dr. Smolen has been a consultant to several drug companies. Dr. Ramiro has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi, and she has received research funding from Merck. Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS