Objective. Several treatment strategies have proven value in the amelioration of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but the optimal strategy for preventing long-term joint damage and functional decline is unclear. We undertook this study to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of 4 different treatment strategies, with intense monitoring in all patients.Methods. In a multicenter, randomized clinical trial, 508 patients were allocated to 1 of 4 treatment strategies: sequential disease-modifying antirheumatic drug monotherapy (group 1), step-up combination therapy (group 2), initial combination therapy with tapered high-dose prednisone (group 3), and initial combination therapy with the tumor necrosis factor antagonist infliximab (group 4). Treatment adjustments were made every 3 months in an effort to obtain low disease activity (a Disease Activity Score in 44 joints of <2.4).Results. Initial combination therapy including either prednisone (group 3) or infliximab (group 4) resulted in earlier functional improvement than did sequential monotherapy (group 1) and step-up combination therapy (group 2), with mean scores at 3 months on the Dutch version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (D-HAQ) of 1.0 in groups 1 and 2 and 0.6 in groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.001). After 1 year, mean D-HAQ scores were 0.7 in groups 1 and 2 and 0.5 in groups 3 and 4 (P ‫؍‬ 0.009). The median increases in total Sharp/Van der Heijde radiographic joint score were 2.0, 2.5, 1.0, and 0.5 in groups 1-4, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the number of adverse events and withdrawals between the groups.Conclusion. In patients with early RA, initial combination therapy including either prednisone or infliximab resulted in earlier functional improvement and less radiographic damage after 1 year than did sequential monotherapy or step-up combination therapy.Over the last 2 decades, the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has changed considerably. Currently, the goal of therapy is not only symptom

No abstract

Objective. To determine whether patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA; inflammatory, nontraumatic arthritis that cannot be diagnosed using current classification criteria) benefit from treatment with methotrexate (MTX).Methods. The PRObable rheumatoid arthritis: Methotrexate versus Placebo Treatment (PROMPT) study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial involving 110 patients with UA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1958 criteria for probable RA. Treatment started with MTX (15 mg/week) or placebo tablets, and every 3 months the dosage was increased if the Disease Activity Score was >2.4. After 12 months, the study medication was tapered and discontinued. Patients were followed up for 30 months. When a patient fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA (primary end point), the study medication was changed to MTX. Joint damage was scored on radiographs of the hands and feet.Results. In 22 of the 55 patients (40%) in the MTX group, UA progressed to RA compared with 29 of 55 patients (53%) in the placebo group. However, in the MTX group, patients fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA at a later time point than in the placebo group (P ‫؍‬ 0.04), and fewer patients showed radiographic progression over 18 months (P ‫؍‬ 0.046).Conclusion. This study provides evidence for the efficacy of MTX treatment in postponing the diagnosis of RA, as defined by the ACR 1987 criteria, and retarding radiographic joint damage in UA patients.

Objective. To compare the effectiveness of 2 Internet-based physical activity interventions for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. A total of 160 physically inactive patients with RA who had a computer with Internet access were randomly assigned to an Internet-based physical activity program with individual guidance, a bicycle ergometer, and group contacts (individualized training [IT] group; n ‫؍‬ 82) or to an Internet-based program providing only general information on exercises and physical activity (general training [GT] group; n ‫؍‬ 78). Outcome measures included quantity of physical activity (questionnaire and activity monitor), functional ability, quality of life, and disease activity (baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Results. The proportion of physically active patients was significantly greater in the IT than in the GT group at 6 (38% versus 22%) and 9 months (35% versus 11%; both P < 0.05) regarding a moderate intensity level for 30 minutes in succession on at least 5 days a week, and at 6 (35% versus 13%), 9 (40% versus 14%), and 12 months (34% versus 10%; all P < 0.005) regarding a vigorous intensity level for 20 minutes in succession on at least 3 days a week. In general, there were no statistically significant differences regarding changes in physical activity as measured with an activity monitor, functional ability, quality of life, or disease activity.Conclusion. An Internet-based physical activity intervention with individually tailored supervision, exercise equipment, and group contacts is more effective with respect to the proportion of patients who report meeting physical activity recommendations than an Internet-based program without these additional elements in patients with RA. No differences were found regarding the total amount of physical activity measured with an activity monitor.

The matrix model visualises the risk of RRP for subpopulations of patients with recent-onset RA if treated dynamically with initial monotherapy or combination therapy. Rheumatologists might use the matrix for weighing their initial treatment choice.