AMSTERDAM – Results of the
At 2 years, similar percentages of patients achieved the coprimary endpoints of disease activity in 28 joints–C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) remission or no radiographic progression regardless of whether MRI was used. Indeed, 85% versus 88% (P = .958) of patients achieved a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6 and 66% and 62% exhibited no radiographic changes (P = .922) with the MRI-guided or conventional treat-to-target strategies.“Despite patients achieving a target of clinical remission, we still see erosive progression in about 20%-30%,” study investigator Signe Møller-Bisgaard, MD, PhD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. That’s regardless of the definition of remission that you use, she added.
Dr. Møller-Bisgaard, a resident in rheumatology and postdoctoral researcher who works at Rigshospitalet and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, observed that both synovial inflammation and bone marrow edema seen on MRI had been shown to predict progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
What was not known, however, was whether there was any value in specifically targeting MRI remission in patients who had already achieved clinical remission. This is what the IMAGINE-RA study set out to address. It was a 2-year trial of 200 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission who were recruited and randomized to either an MRI or conventional treat-to-target strategy. The study involved nine rheumatology and eight radiological departments, Dr. Møller-Bisgaard said.
The protocol for the study (Trials. 2015;16:178) defined clinical remission as a DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or lower and no swollen joints. Patients had to have erosions on x-ray, be anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide positive, and be treated only with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) at the time of entry.
During the study patients were assessed every 4 months via the DAS28 or DAS28 plus MRI of the dominant hand and wrist, with radiographs of the hands and feet performed annually in both groups and MRI also performed yearly in the conventional treat-to-target group.
“Treatment was intensified in both arms if the DAS28-CRP was above 3.2, and there was at least one clinical swollen joint,” Dr. Møller-Bisgaard explained. Treatment was also intensified in the MRI group if bone marrow edema was observed. Treatment intensification involved maximal doses of csDMARDs alone or in combinations, and then addition of biologic treatments, such as a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
“Targeting absence of MRI bone marrow edema in addition to a conventional treat-to-target strategy in RA patients in clinical remission had no effect on the probability of achieving DAS28-CRP remission or halting radiographic progression,” she said.
However, there were some positive effects on several predefined secondary endpoints. For instance, more patients in the MRI group than in the conventional treat-to-target group achieved American College of Rheumatology/EULAR remission (49% vs. 32%; P = .017). There was a significant improvement in the number of swollen joints and a patient and physician global assessment. “There was also more improvement in HAQ [Health Assessment Questionnaire], with a difference between the groups of .14 [P less than .001], Dr. Møller-Bisgaard reported.