Effect of Half-Dose vs Stable-Dose Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs on Disease Flares in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission: The ARCTIC REWIND Randomized Clinical Trial.
Adult
Aged
Antirheumatic Agents
/ administration & dosage
Arthritis, Rheumatoid
/ diagnostic imaging
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Drug Therapy, Combination
Female
Humans
Hydroxychloroquine
/ administration & dosage
Leflunomide
/ administration & dosage
Male
Methotrexate
/ administration & dosage
Middle Aged
Radiography
Sulfasalazine
/ administration & dosage
Symptom Flare Up
Ultrasonography
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 05 2021
04 05 2021
Historique:
entrez:
4
5
2021
pubmed:
5
5
2021
medline:
21
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sustained remission has become an achievable goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but how to best treat patients in clinical remission remains unclear. To assess the effect of tapering of csDMARDs, compared with continuing csDMARDs without tapering, on the risk of flares in patients with RA in sustained remission. ARCTIC REWIND was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label noninferiority study conducted in 10 Norwegian hospital-based rheumatology practices. A total of 160 patients with RA in remission for 12 months who were receiving stable csDMARD therapy were enrolled between June 2013 and June 2018, and the final visit occurred in June 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to half-dose csDMARDs (n = 80) or stable-dose csDMARDs (n = 80). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a disease flare between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) greater than 1.6 (threshold for RA remission), an increase in DAS score of 0.6 units or more, and at least 2 swollen joints. A disease flare could also be recorded if both the patient and investigator agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. A risk difference of 20% was defined as the noninferiority margin. Of 160 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [11.9] years; 66% female), 156 received the allocated therapy, of which 155 without any major protocol violations were included in the primary analysis population (77 receiving half-dose and 78 receiving stable-dose csDMARDs). Flare occurred in 19 patients (25%) in the half-dose csDMARD group compared with 5 (6%) in the stable-dose csDMARD group (risk difference, 18% [95% CI, 7%-29%]). Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (44%) in the half-dose group and 42 (54%) in the stable-dose group, none leading to study discontinuation. No deaths occurred. Among patients with RA in remission taking csDMARD therapy, treatment with half-dose vs stable-dose csDMARDs did not demonstrate noninferiority for the percentage of patients with disease flares over 12 months, and there were significantly fewer flares in the stable-dose group. These findings do not support treatment with half-dose therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01881308.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33944875
pii: 2779548
doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.4542
pmc: PMC8097499
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antirheumatic Agents
0
Sulfasalazine
3XC8GUZ6CB
Hydroxychloroquine
4QWG6N8QKH
Leflunomide
G162GK9U4W
Methotrexate
YL5FZ2Y5U1
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01881308']
Types de publication
Equivalence Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1755-1764Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005 Sep-Oct;23(5 Suppl 39):S188-94
pubmed: 16273806
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Jun;70(6):935-42
pubmed: 21540201
BMJ. 2016 Aug 16;354:i4205
pubmed: 27530741
J Rheumatol. 2013 Oct;40(10):1650-7
pubmed: 23950185
BMJ. 2015 Apr 09;350:h1389
pubmed: 25858265
Ann Rheum Dis. 1990 Nov;49(11):916-20
pubmed: 2256738
Br J Rheumatol. 1996 Nov;35(11):1101-5
pubmed: 8948296
J Rheumatol. 1999 Mar;26(3):743-5
pubmed: 10090194
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Sep;69(9):1580-8
pubmed: 20699241
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004 Oct;43(10):1252-5
pubmed: 15238643
Lancet. 1996 Feb 10;347(8998):347-52
pubmed: 8598699
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Dec;75(12):2119-2123
pubmed: 27283332
Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63(3):573-86
pubmed: 21294106
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):727-35
pubmed: 7779114
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 17;172(6):369-380
pubmed: 32066146
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003 Feb;42(2):244-57
pubmed: 12595618
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Nov;70(11):1995-8
pubmed: 21784724
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jan;75(1):45-51
pubmed: 25660991
Ann Rheum Dis. 2006 May;65(5):637-41
pubmed: 16219709
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Aug;75(8):1428-37
pubmed: 27261493
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72
pubmed: 10158943
Q J Med. 1968 Jul;37(147):393-406
pubmed: 4877784
Arthritis Rheum. 1996 Jan;39(1):34-40
pubmed: 8546736
J Rheumatol. 2009 Sep;36(9):2061-6
pubmed: 19738214
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Feb;70(2):315-9
pubmed: 21068104
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371(19):1781-92
pubmed: 25372086
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005 Sep-Oct;23(5 Suppl 39):S100-8
pubmed: 16273793
Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(6):746-753
pubmed: 30954969
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jan;75(1):52-8
pubmed: 25873634
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan;38(1):44-8
pubmed: 7818570
Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(6):685-699
pubmed: 31969328
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Feb;74(2):381-8
pubmed: 24285493
Lancet. 2014 Jan 25;383(9914):321-32
pubmed: 24168956