4.7 Article

Outcome in rheumatoid arthritis patients with continued conventional therapy for moderate disease activity-the early RA network (ERAN)

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 926-931

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq406

Keywords

Early rheumatoid arthritis; DMARD; 28-joint disease activity score; HAQ

Categories

Funding

  1. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
  2. Healthcare Commission
  3. Sanofi-Aventis
  4. Schering Plough
  5. Wyeth
  6. Abbot
  7. Bristol Myers Squibb
  8. Roche
  9. UCB

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods. ERAN is a prospective observational cohort of newly diagnosed RA patients, monitored and treated according to local practice. Standardized case report forms are completed at first presentation, 3-6 months, 1 year and annually thereafter. Results. A total of 418 newly diagnosed RA patients with 2 years and 302 with 3 years follow-up were identified in 22 ERAN centres from 2002 to 2008. Within their first year from registration, 67% of patients received monotherapy DMARDs, and 26% combination DMARDs including 2% were on anti-TNF therapies. Between Years 1 and 3, 60% received DMARD monotherapy, 34% combination DMARD therapy including 8% on anti-TNF therapies. Seventy-four per cent of patients with Year 1 DAS-28 < 3.2 and 27% with DAS-28 3.2-5.1 achieved a DAS-28 < 3.2 outcome at Year 2 [odds ratio (OR) 7.64; 95% CI 4.6, 12.6], and 71 and 35%, respectively, at Year 3 (OR 4.49; 95% CI 2.5, 7.9). Seventy-nine per cent of patients with a Year 1 DAS-28 < 3.2 and 52% with DAS-28 3.2-5.1 achieved an HAQ < 1.25 at Year 2 (OR 3.47; 95% CI 2.1, 5.6), and 81 and 47%, respectively, at Year 3 (OR 4.92; 95% CI 2.6, 9.0). Conclusions. In RA patients with a DAS-28 3.2-5.1 at 1 year, the likelihood of achieving a target low DAS-28 < 3.2, or a low HAQ, at Years 2 or 3 is poor in a routine care setting using conventional DMARDs according to current practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available