Current Rheumatology Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 46–52

Radiography of rheumatoid arthritis in the time of increasing drug effectiveness

  • Frederick Wolfe
  • Vibeke Strand
Article

Abstract

Recent clinical development programs for new therapeutic agents in rheumatoid arthritis have included assessment of radiographic progression comparing changes with treatment to placebo and active controls. Studies now use reliable methods of assessment and sufficient study length to detect radiographic changes. Although patient populations and characteristics differ, and radiographic scoring methods vary, the direction of a series of studies appears to indicate that leflunomide (LEF), methotrexate (MTX), sulfasalazine (SSZ), etanercept, infliximab, and IL-1ra are all effective in retarding radiographic progression, as measured by erosions and joint space narrowing. Interpretation of radiograph data in future trials will be aided by utilization of common reading methods and by continuing comparison across differing rheumatoid arthritis protocol populations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Rau R, Wassenberg S: Paucity of radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate as the first disease modifying antirheumatic drug [letter]. J Rheumatol 1999, 26:2280–2281.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharp JT, Strand V, Leung H, Hurley F, LoewFriedrich I: Treatment with leflunomide slows radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis: results from three randomized controlled trials of leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43:495–505. In three separate trials, leflunomide has been shown to significantly slow the progression of disease as measured radiographically. In addition, sulfasalazine and methotrexate are able to slow disease as measured radiographically.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Riel PL, van der Heijde DMFM, Nuver-Zwart IH, van de Putte LBA: Radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: results of 3 comparative trials. J Rheumatol 1995, 22:1797–1799.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rau R, Herborn G, Menninger H, Sangha O: Progression in early erosive rheumatoid arthritis: 12 month results from a randomized controlled trial comparing methotrexate and gold sodium thiomalate. Br J Rheumatol 1998, 37:1220–1226. In patients with early erosive rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate and gold salts were able to alter in a positive way the progression of the disease. Measures of inflammation (C-reactive protein and leptocyte sedimentation rate) and serum rheumatoid factor correlated with these changes.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boers M, Verhoeven AC, Markusse HM, et al.: Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 1997, 350:309–318. High doses of prednisolone were shown to have a significant clinical benefit in signs and symptoms and radiographic damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drosos AA, Tsifetaki N, Tsiakou EK, et al.: Influence of methotrexate on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a sixty-month prospective study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1997, 15:263–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rau R, Herborn G, Karger T, Werdier D: Retardation of radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate therapy. A controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 1991, 34:1236–1244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iannuzzi L, Dawson N, Zein N, Kushner I: Does drug therapy slow radiographic deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis? N Engl J Med 1983, 309:1023–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smolen JS: Efficacy and safety of the new DMARD leflunomide: comparison to placebo and sulfasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1999, 28:15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strand V, Cohen S, Schiff M, et al.: Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arch Intern Med 1999, 159:2542–2550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathias SD, Colwell HH, Miller DP, Moreland LW, Buatti M, Wanke L: Health-related quality of life and functional status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis randomly assigned to receive etanercept or placebo. Clin Ther 2000, 22:128–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harriman G, Harper LK, Schaible TF: Summary of clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis using infliximab, an anti-TNFalpha treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 1999, 58(suppl:1):I61-I64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maini RN, Taylor PC, Paleolog E, et al.: Anti-tumour necrosis factor specific antibody (infliximab) treatment provides insights into the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1999, 58(suppl:1):I56-I60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moreland LW, Schiff MH, Baumgartner SW, et al.: Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999, 130:478–486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Bankhurst AD, et al.: A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor: Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. N Engl J Med 1999, 340:253–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arend WP, Malyak M, Guthridge CJ, Gabay C: Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist: role in biology. Annu Rev Immunol 1998, 16:27–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maini RN, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, et al.: Therapeutic efficacy of multiple intravenous infusions of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody combined with low-dose weekly methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1998, 41:1552–1563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perrier S, Coussediere C, Dubost JJ, Albuisson E, Sauvezie B: IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA) gene polymorphism in Sjogren’s syndrome and rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1998, 87:309–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharp JT: Radiological assessment of joint damage—the premier outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis—current status and future potential. In Wolfe F, Pincus T, editors. Rheumatoid Arthritis: Pathogenesis, Assessment, Outcome, and Treatment. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1994:167–189.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Heijde DMFM. Joint erosions and patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1995, 34:74–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Heijde DMFM, van Leeuwen MA, van Riel PLCM, van de Putte LBA: Radiographic progression on radiographs of hands and feet during the first 3 years of rheumatoid arthritis measured according to Sharp’s method (van der Heijde modification). J Rheumatol 1995, 22:1792–1796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Leeuwen MA, van Rijswijk MH, Sluiter WJ, et al.: Individual relationship between progression of radiological damage and the acute phase response in early rheumatoid arthritis. Towards development of a decision support system. J Rheumatol. 1997, 24:20–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scott DL, Pugner K, Kaarela K, et al.: The links between joint damage and disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2000, 39:122–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    WolfeF, Sharp JT: Radiographic outcome of recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: a 19-year study of radiographic progression. Arthritis Rheum 1998, 41:1571–1582. A longitudinal study concluding that radiographic damage occurs at a constant rate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and these changes correlate most strongly with acute phase reactants.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lassere M, Boers M, van der HD, et al.: Smallest detectable difference in radiological progression. J Rheumatol 1999, 26:731–739.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between to methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, i:310.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wolfe F, van der Heijde DM, Larsen A: Assessing radiographic status in rheumatoid arthritis: introduction of a shortened erosion scale. J Rheumatol. In press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharp JT: Scoring radiographic abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis. Radiol Clin North Am 1996, 34:233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Heijde DMFM: Plain X-rays in rheumatoid arthritis: overview of scoring methods, their reliability and applicability. Bailliere Clin Rheumatol 1996, 10:435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Heijde DMFM, van Leeuwen MA, et al.: Biannual radiographic assessments of hands and feet in a three-year prospective followup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1992, 35:26–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Larsen A: How to apply Larsen score in evaluating radiographs of rheumatoid arthritis in longterm studies? J Rheumatol 1995, 22:1974–1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scott DL, Houssien DA, Laasonen L: Proposed modification to Larsen’s scoring methods for hand and wrist radiographs. Br J Rheumatol 1995, 34:56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Edmonds J, Saudan A, Lassere M, Scott D: Introduction to reading radiographs by the Scott modification of the Larsen method. J Rheumatol 1999, 26:740–742.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Genant HK, Jiang YB, Peterfy C, Lu Y, Redei J, Countryman PJ: Assessment of rheumatoid arthritis using a modified scoring method on digitized and original radiographs. Arthritis Rheum 1998, 41:1583–1590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Genant HK: Methods of assessing radiographic change in rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med 1983, 75:35–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pincus T, Callahan LF, Fuchs HA, Larsen A, Kaye J: Quantitative analysis of hand radiographs in rheumatoid arthritis: time course of radiographic changes, relation to joint examination measures, and comparison of different scoring methods. J Rheumatol 1995, 22:1983–1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaye JJ, Nance EP Jr, Callahan LF, et al.: Observer variation in quantitative assessment of rheumatoid arthritis, II: a simplified scoring system. Invest Radiol 1987, 22:41–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van der Heijde DMFM, van Riel PL, qvan Leeuwen MA, Van ’t Hof MA, van Rijswijk MH, van de Putte LBA: Prognostic factors for radiographic damage and physical disability in early rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 147 patients. Br J Rheumatol 1992, 31:519–525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Leeuwen MA, van Rijswijk MH, van der Heijde, et al.: The acute-phase response in relation to radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective study during the first three years of the disease. Br J Rheumatol 1993, 32(suppl:3):9–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, et al.: A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:1586–1593. Important study comparing etanercept and methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients with early disease. Etanercept worked more quickly than methotrexate in decreasing symptoms and slowing joint damage.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lipsky PE, van der Heijde DMFM, St. Clair EW, et al.: Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:1594–1602. Very important study demonstrating the combination of infliximab and methotrexate significantly decreased symptoms and radiographic progression of disease in rheumatoid arthritis patients with persistent disease despite treatment with methotrexate.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick Wolfe
    • 1
  • Vibeke Strand
  1. 1.Arthritis Research Center FoundationWichitaUSA

Personalised recommendations