OP0149 An mri guided treat-to-target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis patients in clinical remission improved mri inflammation but not damage progression – results from the imagine-ra randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveTo determine the non-inferiority of nurse-led care (NLC) in patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive and/or rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with active disease who are starting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, following treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations.MethodsA multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was conducted to assess clinical effectiveness, anxiety, depression and patient satisfaction following a non-inferiority design. The participants were 224 adults with ACPA/RF-positive RA who were randomly assigned to either NLC or rheumatologist-led care (RLC). The primary outcome was the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints measured with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) assessed at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A DAS28-CRP difference of 0.6 was set as the non-inferiority margin. Mean differences between the groups were assessed following per-protocol and intention-to-treat strategies.ResultsDemographic data and baseline characteristics of patients in the NLC group (n=111) were comparable to those of patients in the RLC group (n=113). The improvement in disease activity (change in DAS28-CRP, primary outcome) over the course of 12 months was significant in both groups (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the NLC and RLC groups (p=0.317). Non-inferiority of NLC was shown for the primary outcome and all secondary outcomes.ConclusionThis study supported the non-inferiority of NLC in managing T2T and follow-up care of patients with RA with moderate to high disease activity and poor prognostic factors in addition to RLC.Trial registration numberDRKS00013055.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of MRI bone oedema is the strongest predictor of subsequent radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a 2-year randomised controlled trial (CIMESTRA).

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.1158507.618812 ◽

2009 ◽

Author(s):

Jacques Morel

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Early Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Radiographic Progression ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Bone Oedema

Download Full-text

Clinical and cost effectiveness of arthritis gloves in rheumatoid arthritis (A-GLOVES): randomised controlled trial with economic analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-020-03917-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Alison Hammond ◽

Yeliz Prior ◽

Sarah Cotterill ◽

Chris Sutton ◽

Elizabeth Camacho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Recent Change ◽

Control Group ◽

Dominant Hand ◽

Night Time ◽

Hand Pain ◽

Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Arthritis (or compression) gloves are widely prescribed to people with rheumatoid arthritis and other forms of hand arthritis. They are prescribed for daytime wear to reduce hand pain and improve hand function, and/or night-time wear to reduce pain, improve sleep and reduce morning stiffness. However, evidence for their effectiveness is limited. The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthritis gloves compared to placebo gloves on hand pain, stiffness and function in people with rheumatoid arthritis and persistent hand pain. Methods A parallel randomised controlled trial, in adults (≥ 18 years) with rheumatoid or undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis at 16 National Health Service sites in the UK. Patients with persistent hand pain affecting function and/or sleep were eligible. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by recent change (or not) in medication, using permuted blocks of random sizes. Three-quarter-finger length arthritis gloves (Isotoner®: applying 23-32 mmHg pressure) (intervention) were compared to loose-fitting placebo gloves (Jobskin® classic: providing no/minimal pressure) (control). Both gloves (considered to have similar thermal qualities) were provided by occupational therapists. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded; clinicians were not. The primary outcome was dominant hand pain on activity (0–10) at 12 weeks, analysed using linear regression and intention to treat principles. Results Two hundred six participants were randomly assigned (103 per arm) and 163 (84 intervention: 79 control) completed 12-week follow-up. Hand pain improved by 1.0 (intervention) and 1.2 (control), an adjusted mean difference of 0.10 (95% CI: − 0.47 to 0.67; p = 0.72). Adverse events were reported by 51% of intervention and 36% of control group participants; with 6 and 7% respectively, discontinuing glove wear. Provision of arthritis gloves cost £129, with no additional benefit. Conclusion The trial provides evidence of no clinically important effect of arthritis gloves on any of the trial outcomes (hand pain, function and stiffness) and arthritis gloves are not cost-effective. The clinical and cost-effectiveness results support ceasing provision of arthritis gloves in routine clinical practice. Funding: National Institute for Health Research. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN25892131; Registered 05/09/2016: retrospectively registered.

Download Full-text