ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of two tapering strategies after achieving controlled disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), during 1 year of follow-up.MethodsIn this multicentre single-blinded (research nurses) randomised controlled trial, patients with RA were included who achieved controlled disease, defined as a Disease Activity Score (DAS) ≤ 2.4 and a Swollen Joint Count (SJC) ≤ 1, treated with both a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) and a TNF inhibitor. Eligible patients were randomised into gradual tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors. Medication was tapered if the RA was still under control, by cutting the dosage into half, a quarter and thereafter it was stopped. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with a disease flare, defined as DAS > 2.4 and/or SJC > 1. Secondary outcomes were DAS, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ5D) and functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index [HAQ-DI]) after 1 year and over time.ResultsA total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to tapering csDMARDs (n = 94) or tapering anti-TNF (n = 95). The cumulative flare rates in the csDMARD and anti-TNF tapering group were, respectively, 33 % (95% CI,24% to 43 %) and 43 % (95% CI, 33% to 53 % (p = 0.17). Mean DAS, HAQ-DI and EQ-5D did not differ between tapering groups after 1 year and over time.ConclusionUp to 9 months, flare rates of tapering csDMARDs or TNF inhibitors were similar. After 1 year, a non-significant difference was found of 10 % favouring csDMARD tapering. Tapering TNF inhibitors was, therefore, not superior to tapering csDMARDs. From a societal perspective, it would be sensible to taper the TNF inhibitor first, because of possible cost reductions and less long-term side effects.Trial registration numberNTR2754

HRQOL was diminished in PsA at time of diagnosis compared to the Dutch reference population, and tender joints, enthesitis at clinical examination, and back pain as indicators of pain affected HRQOL.

Objective Treat‐to‐target strategies have improved outcomes in rheumatic diseases. In psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the proposed targets are the multidimensional target minimal disease activity (MDA) and the articular target Disease Activity index for PsA (DAPSA). The aim of this study was to compare the disease burden of PsA in patients with low disease activity according to the 2 definitions, MDA and DAPSA low disease activity (DAPSA‐LDA), 1 year after diagnosis. Methods We obtained data on MDA, DAPSA‐LDA and disease burden 1 year after diagnosis for patients included in the Dutch southwest early PsA cohort. Disease burden was assessed in 2 domains: “Body functions,” including the Short Form 36 bodily pain (SF‐36 BP) measure, and “Activity,” including the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Results Among the 292 patients included, 48% achieved MDA and 74% achieved DAPSA‐LDA. Average scores for Body functions and Activity were better in patients who achieved MDA and those who achieved DAPSA‐LDA. The scores were significantly better in the 46% of patients who achieved both MDA and DAPSA‐LDA than in the 29% of patients who achieved only DAPSA‐LDA. The average SF‐36 BP score was higher in patients achieving both targets (73.8; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 71.1‐76.5) than in patients achieving only DAPSA‐LDA (57.6; 95% CI 54.5‐60.8). Similarly, mean HAQ scores measuring Activity were 0.21 (95% CI 0.15‐0.26) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.53‐0.72), respectively. Conclusion Among patients with newly diagnosed PsA, 48% achieved MDA and 74% achieved DAPSA‐LDA after 1 year of receiving usual care. The average disease burden was better in patients who achieved MDA and those who achieved DAPSA‐LDA. Also, patients who achieved only DAPSA‐LDA reported worse outcomes than those who also achieved MDA.

IntroductionNon-adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is suspected to relate to health care costs. In this study we investigated this relation in the first year of treatment.MethodsIn a multi-center cohort study with a one year follow up, non-adherence was continuously measured using electronic monitored medication jars. Non-adherence was defined as the number of days with a negative difference between expected and observed opening of the container. Cost measurement focused on hospital costs in the first year: consultations, emergency room visits, hospitalization, medical procedures, imaging modalities, medication costs, and laboratory tests. Cost volumes were registered from patient medical files. We applied multivariate regression analyses for the association between non-adherence and costs, and other variables (age, sex, center, baseline disease activity, diagnosis, socioeconomic status, anxiety and depression) and costs.ResultsOf the 275 invited patients, 206 were willing to participate. 74.2% had rheumatoid arthritis, 20.9% had psoriatic arthritis and 4.9% undifferentiated arthritis. 23.7% of the patients were more than 20% non-adherent over the follow-up period. Mean costs are € 2117.25 (SD € 3020.32). Non-adherence was positively related to costs in addition to baseline anxiety.ConclusionNon-adherence is associated with health care costs in the first year of treatment for arthritis. This suggests that improving adherence is not only associated with better outcome, but also with savings.

Objectives To compare responsiveness and longitudinal validity of Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), GRAppa Composite scorE (GRACE) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) in usual care PsA patients, within 1 year after diagnosis. Methods Data collected in the Dutch southwest early PsA cohort (DEPAR) were used. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and discrimination between different general health states. Longitudinal validity was tested using mixed models with outcomes health-related quality of life (HRQOL), productivity and disability. Results Responsiveness was highest for PASDAS, with ES 1.00 and SRM 0.95, lowest for DAPSA, with ES 0.73 and SRM 0.71, and in between for DAS28, CPDAI and GRACE. Differences in general health were best discriminated with PASDAS and GRACE. Patients reporting stable or worsening general health could not be distinguished by DAS28 or CPDAI. Discrimination was better using DAPSA, but worse than when using PASDAS and GRACE. Longitudinal evolvement of HRQOL and productivity had the highest association with low disease activity according to GRACE, followed by PASDAS, MDA, DAPSA, DAS28, with the lowest association for CPDAI. Conclusion PASDAS and GRACE were superior with respect to responsiveness, and together with MDA best related to longitudinal evolvement of HRQOL, productivity and disability. Responsiveness and longitudinal validity of most outcomes were inferior for DAS28, DAPSA and CPDAI. As alternatives to the continuous measure DAPSA, use of PASDAS or GRACE should be considered.