Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 721–727 | Cite as

Disease activity and functional changes of RA patients receiving different DMARDs in clinical practice

  • Manathip OsiriEmail author
  • Utis Deesomchok
  • Peter Tugwell
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in improving disease activity and functional status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). One hundred and fifty-two Thai RA patients treated with at least one DMARD were enrolled in this 1-year cohort. Demographic characteristics, baseline and end-of-study data on disease activity and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index of the subjects were compared among different DMARD options. Predictors of HAQ score were investigated using regression analysis. The results showed that the studied patients had established RA with mild to moderate activity. More than 85% were prescribed methotrexate (MTX) as single or combined DMARDs. At 1 year, improvement in most activity measures was experienced. However, all patients had functional declines. Patients taking antimalarial agents had the maximal rate of functional deterioration. Patients taking MTX-based DMARDs had significantly lower rate of functional decline than patients taking DMARDs without MTX (p=0.018). Only patients receiving MTX-based DMARDs had clinically meaningful improvement in HAQ score. The predictors of HAQ score at 1 year included baseline HAQ score and patient global assessment at end of study. In conclusion, although DMARD treatment was shown to improve disease activity in RA patients, functional deterioration was evident in our cohort. Thus, measures of functional status are more appropriate than measures of disease activity to evaluate treatment effects of DMARDs in established RA in clinical practice. MTX-based DMARDs should be prescribed where possible in RA patients with persisting activity due to their ability to delay functional deterioration.

Keywords

Disease activity Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs Functional status Rheumatoid arthritis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Ratchadapiseksompotch Fund, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University. The authors would like to thank Prof. Pirom Kamolratanakul for supporting this study, Asst. Prof. Somrat Lertmaharit for statistical consultations and Ms. Youwanuch Kaewkum for collecting the data.

References

  1. 1.
    Gabriel SE (2001) The epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 27:269–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdel-Nasser AM, Rasker JJ, Valkenburg HA (1997) Epidemiological and clinical aspects relating to the variability of rheumatoid arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 27:123–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kvien TK (2004) Epidemiology and burden of illness of rheumatoid arthritis. PharmacoEconomics 22(Suppl 1):1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper NJ (2000) Economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology 39:28–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Rheumatoid Arthritis Guidelines (2002) Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2002 update. Arthritis Rheum 46:328–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borg G, Allander E, Lund B, Berg E, Brodin U, Pettersson H et al (1988) Auranofin improves outcome in early rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a 2-year, double blind placebo controlled study. J Rheumatol 15:1747–1754PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egsmose C, Lund B, Borg G, Pettersson H, Berg E, Brodin U et al (1995) Patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefit from early 2nd line therapy: 5 year follow-up of a prospective double blind placebo controlled study. J Rheumatol 22:2208–2213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boers M, Verhoeven AC, Markusse HM, van de Laar MA, Westhovens R, van Denderen JC et al (1997) Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 350:309–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Landewe RB, Boers M, Verhoeven AC, Westhovens R, van de Laar MA, Markusse HM et al (2002) COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention. Arthritis Rheum 46:347–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suarez-Almazor ME, Soskolne CL, Saunders LD, Russell AS (1994) Outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. A 1985 inception cohort study. J Rheumatol 21:1438–1446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Heide A, Jacobs JW, Bijlsma JW, Heurkens AH, van Booma-Frankfort C, van der Veen MJ et al (1996) The effectiveness of early treatment with “second-line” antirheumatic drugs. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 124:699–707PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blumenauer B, Cranney A, Clinch J, Tugwell P (2003) Quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: which drugs might make a difference? PharmacoEconomics 21(13):927–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scott DL, Strand V (2002) The effects of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on the Health Assessment Questionnaire score. Lessons from the leflunomide clinical trials database. Rheumatology 41:899–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Furst D, Goldsmith C et al (1995) American College of Rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 38:727–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Heijde DM, van’t Hof MA, van Riel PL, Theunisse LA, Lubberts EW, van Leeuwen MA et al (1990) Judging disease activity in clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis: first step in the development of a disease activity score. Ann Rheum Dis 49:916–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Gestel AM, Haagsma CJ, van Riel PLCM (1998) Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum 41:1845–1850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Gestel AM, Anderson JJ, van Riel PL, Boers M, Haagsma CJ, Rich B et al (1999) ACR and EULAR improvement criteria have comparable validity in rheumatoid arthritis trials. J Rheumatol 26:705–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR (1980) Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 23:137–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramey DR, Raynauld JP, Fries JF (1992) The health assessment questionnaire 1992: status and review. Arthritis Care Res 5:119–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bruce B, Fries JF (2003) The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 30:167–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bruce B, Fries JF (2003) The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS et al (1988) The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 31:15–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Osiri M, Deesomchok U, Tugwell P (2001) Evaluation of functional ability of Thai patients with rheumatoid arthritis by the use of a Thai version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Rheumatology 40:555–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE Jr (2000) Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 43:1478–1487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Symmons DP, Silman AJ (2003) The Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR). Clin Exp Rheumatol 21(Suppl 31):S94–S99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eberhardt K (2004) Experiences from a prospective early rheumatoid arthritis study in Southern Sweden. J Rheumatol 31(Suppl 69):9–13Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Welsing PMJ, van Riel PLCM (2004) The Nijmegen inception cohort of early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 31(Suppl 69):14–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zink A, Huscher D (2004) Long-term studies in rheumatoid arthritis—the German experience. J Rheumatol 31(Suppl 69):22–26Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Watanabe K, Urata S, Suzuki K, Ohba M, Inagari Y (2004) Progressive and nonprogressive rheumatoid arthritis over a 10-year period in Japan. J Rheumatol 31(Suppl 69):27–29Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Lange ML, Wells G, LaValley MP (1998) Should improvement in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be defined as fifty percent or seventy percent improvement in core set measures, rather than twenty percent? Arthritis Rheum 41:1564–1570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buchbinder R, Bombardier C, Yeung M, Tugwell P (1995) Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials? Clinical and quality-of-life measures’ responsiveness to treatment in a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 38:1568–1580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boers M, Verhoeven AC, van der Linden S (2001) American College of Rheumatology criteria for improvement in rheumatoid arthritis should only be calculated from scores that decrease on improvement. Arthritis Rheum 44:1052–1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Albert DA, Huang G, Dubrow G, Brensinger CM, Berlin JA, Williams HJ (2004) Criteria for improvement in rheumatoid arthritis: alternatives to the American College of Rheumatology 20. J Rheumatol 31:856–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pease CT, Bhakta BB, Devlin J, Emery P (1999) Does the age of onset of rheumatoid arthritis influence phenotype? A prospective study of outcome and prognostic factors. Rheumatology 38:228–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Drossaers-Bakker KW, Zwinderman AH, Vliet Vlieland TPM, van Zeben D, Vos K, Breedveld FC et al (2002) Long-term outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: a simple algorithm of baseline parameters can predict radiographic damage, disability, and disease course at 12-year follow-up. Arthritis Care Res 47:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Zeben D, Hazes JMW, Zwinderman AH, Vandenbroucke JP, Breedveld FC (1993) Factors predicting outcome of rheumatoid arthritis: results of a follow-up study. J Rheumatol 20:1288–1296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harrison BJ, Symmons DPM, Brennan P, Bankhead CR, Barrett EM, Scott DGI et al (1996) Inflammatory polyarthritis in the community is not a benign disease: predicting functional disability. J Rheumatol 23:1326–1331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lindqvist E, Saxne T, Geborek P, Eberhardt K (2002) Ten-year outcome in a cohort of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: health status, disease process, and damage. Ann Rheum Dis 61:1055–1059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cohen SB, Strand V, Aguilar D, Ofman JJ (2004) Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (anakinra) therapy. Rheumatology 43:704–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manathip Osiri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Utis Deesomchok
    • 1
  • Peter Tugwell
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of MedicineChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Centre for Global Health, Institute of Population HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations