Rheumatoid Arthritis: Van Der Heijde D

Van Der Heijde D, Sharp JT, Rau R, Strand V, Anonymous00465. · University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12734917 No free full text.

Abstract: This article describes the process and results of a workshop aimed at reviewing data on repair of structural damage collected by the OMERACT Subcommittee on Healing of Erosions and at defining a priority list for the subsequent research agenda.

Davis JC, Van Der Heijde D, Braun J, Dougados M, Cush J, Clegg DO, Kivitz A, Fleischmann R, Inman R, Tsuji W, Anonymous00203. · University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #14613288 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of etanercept in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of adults with moderate to severe active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Patients (n = 277) were treated with either etanercept 25 mg (n = 138) or placebo (n = 139) subcutaneously twice weekly for 24 weeks. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of patients achieving the Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis 20% response (ASAS20) at weeks 12 and 24. Other outcome measures included the percentage of patients achieving higher ASAS responses, and the safety of etanercept in patients with AS. All outcome measures were assessed at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Treatment with etanercept resulted in dramatic improvement. The ASAS20 was achieved by 59% of patients in the etanercept group and by 28% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.0001) at week 12, and by 57% and 22% of patients, respectively, at week 24 (P < 0.0001). All individual ASAS components, acute-phase reactant levels, and spinal mobility measures were also significantly improved. The safety profile of etanercept was similar to that reported in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. The only adverse events that occurred significantly more often in the etanercept group were injection-site reactions, accidental injuries, and upper respiratory tract infections. CONCLUSION: Etanercept is a highly effective and well tolerated treatment in patients with active AS.

Garnero P, Landewé R, Boers M, Verhoeven A, Van Der Linden S, Christgau S, Van Der Heijde D, Boonen A, Geusens P. · INSERM Research Unit 403, and Synarc, Lyon, France. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12428224 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The known risk factors for radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are not optimally discriminative in patients with early disease who do not have evidence of radiologic damage. We sought to determine whether urinary C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide of type I (CTX-I) and type II (CTX-II) collagen (markers of bone and cartilage destruction, respectively) are associated with long-term radiologic progression in patients with early RA. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 110 patients with early RA who were participating in the COBRA (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis) clinical trial and followup study, a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of oral pulse prednisolone, methotrexate, plus sulfasalazine with sulfasalazine alone. We investigated the relationship between baseline levels of urinary CTX-I and CTX-II and the mean annual progression of joint destruction over a median of 4 years, as measured by changes in the modified Sharp score (average of 2 independent readers). RESULTS: In multivariate logistic regression analysis, baseline urinary CTX-I and CTX-II levels in the highest tertile were the strongest predictors of radiologic progression (Sharp score increase >2 units/year; odds ratio 7.9 and 11.2, respectively), independently of treatment group, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, rheumatoid factor (RF), and baseline joint damage (Sharp score). The likelihood ratios for a positive test were 3.8 and 8.0 for CTX-I and CTX-II, respectively, which compared favorably with the likelihood ratios for the ESR (3.0), baseline joint damage (1.6), and RF (1.8). When patients were grouped according to the presence (Sharp score >/=4, n = 49) and absence (Sharp score <4, n = 61) of joint damage at baseline, CTX-I and CTX-II levels were predictive only in those without baseline joint damage (odds ratio 14.9 and 25.7, respectively). CONCLUSION: High baseline levels of urinary CTX-I and CTX-II independently predict an increased risk of radiologic progression over 4 years in patients with early RA, especially those without radiologic joint damage. Urinary CTX-I and CTX-II may be useful for identifying individual RA patients at high risk of progression very early in the disease, before erosions can be detected radiographically. Such patients may be in special need of treatments that inhibit bone and cartilage degradation.

Bruynesteyn K, Van Der Heijde D, Boers M, Verhoeven A, Boonen A, Van Der Linden S, Anonymous00326. · University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12382303 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the context of a drug trial, prevention of erosions in undamaged joints is often considered more important than prevention of progression in already damaged joints, although a clear rationale is lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relative contribution of separate components of the erosion score of the modified Sharp/van der Heijde method in early RA. METHODS: Different aspects of erosive damage were evaluated by their ability to discriminate between the 2 treatments in an early RA trial (the COBRA trial). RESULTS: The contribution of progression of already eroded joints to the total erosion score clearly increased during the 1.5 years of the trial. When the periods 0-28, 28-56, and 56-80 weeks were analyzed separately, the erosion score showed a significant difference between the groups in the first 2 periods (P < 0.0001, P < 0.03, and P < 0.64, respectively). Similar differences were seen in rates of progression in previously eroded joints (P = 0.005, P = 0.003, P = 0.35). On the other hand, rates of progression in newly eroded joints showed no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups in the second and third period (P < 0.0001, P < 0.16, P < 0.87). Analyses on joint and patient level showed analogous results. CONCLUSION: Subanalyses on progression rates in noneroded joints and already eroded joints can provide additional information. However, important information and discriminative strength may be lost when assessment is limited to the development of erosions in undamaged joints.

Bruynesteyn K, Van Der Linden S, Landewé R, Gubler F, Weijers R, Van Der Heijde D. · Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and the Department of Radiology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15170919 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: In a former study a panel of rheumatologists was used to assess which progression in radiological joint damage due to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on hand and foot radiographs taken at one-year intervals was considered the minimally clinically important difference (MCID). We compare the judgments of the panel of rheumatologists with the judgments of 2 musculoskeletal radiologists. METHODS: Two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated independently the same hand and foot radiographs as assessed by the panel of rheumatologists. Progression was defined as important if the radiologist would state it as substantial progression in their report. Two readers, different from the radiologists and rheumatologists, independently obtained the Sharp/van der Heijde scores. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed to quantify the minimally important progression defined by the radiologists expressed in Sharp/van der Heijde change-scores. The change-score with the highest accuracy represented the minimally important progression and was compared with the MCID defined by the panel of rheumatologists for 4 different settings (early versus advanced RA and mild versus high disease activity). RESULTS: The minimally important progression defined by the radiologists was estimated at 6.5 Sharp/van der Heijde units. This was larger than the MCID defined by the panel of rheumatologists in 3 of the 4 clinical settings (3.0-4.5 units) and similar to the setting "advanced RA, mild disease activity." The panel of rheumatologists was inclined to change therapy in cases not reported as substantially progressive by the radiologists. The Sharp/van der Heijde progression scores of the radiographs on which the radiologists and rheumatologists disagreed related better with the rheumatologists' opinions. CONCLUSION: Changes that were not regarded as substantial by the radiologists were judged clinically important by the rheumatologists in 3 of the 4 clinical settings. Thus, the radiologists appeared to be reserved in judging changes as important.

Sharp JT, Wolfe F, Lassere M, Boers M, Van Der Heijde D, Larsen A, Paulus H, Rau R, Strand V. · University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15170916 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of precision and sources of variability among experts on scoring radiographic abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Radiographic scores from 6 datasets in which 2 or more readers had scored film sets were analyzed. Datasets included scores by 11 different readers, 6 of whom scored films by both the Larsen (global) and Sharp (composite) methods. Scores of each possible combination of 2 readers were compared in calculating the smallest detectable difference (SDD) on raw scores and on scores normalized for each individual reader (nSDD). Intraclass correlation (ICC), Pearson's r, and the correlation between differences in score and their mean scores were determined. Agreement on progression of radiographic damage scores was also examined. RESULTS: Variability among readers was greater than previous studies suggested. Agreement was better for intra- than interreader comparisons; average intrareader SDD was 24.4 for the composite method and 9.0 for the global. The larger SDD for the composite method reflect their greater range of possible scores. When normalized scores were used to adjust for the range difference, there was minimal difference in the SDD; nSDD was 10.1 for the composite method, 8.0 for the global. Interreader variability was larger: SDD of 53.7 for the composite method and 23.3 for the global; nSDD 12.9 and 14.4, respectively. ICC varied between 0.465 and 0.999, with all but one value below 0.925 occurring in composite scores with a range below 100. Differences in repeated scores were frequently associated with the mean of those scores and this was greater for inter- than for intrareader comparisons. Agreement between progression scores showed a similar pattern. The SDD was better for intrareader comparisons and smaller for global scores: compare 13.7 (composite, intrareader) and 5.4 (global, intrareader) to 18.1 (composite, interreader) and 8.7 (global, interreader). The ICC was lower for progression scores than for raw scores, averaging between 0.661 and 0.885. CONCLUSION: The variability in scoring radiographic abnormalities is considerable among this group of 11 expert readers. This has important implications for power calculations in comparison studies such as therapeutic trials and for cross-trial comparisons. The correlation between the difference in repeated scores and their means indicates systematic error (bias), which, if corrected, may improve the detection of treatment effects when using a responder-type analysis. These and other design and analysis issues are discussed.

Sharp JT, Van Der Heijde D, Boers M, Boonen A, Bruynesteyn K, Emery P, Genant HK, Herborn G, Jurik A, Lassere M, McQueen F, Østergaard M, Peterfy C, Rau R, Strand V, Wassenberg S, Weissman B, Anonymous00464. · University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12734916 No free full text.

Abstract: The committee was charged with determining whether healing of erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occurs. Two exercises were performed: The first asked the committee members, as a panel of experts, to express agreement or disagreement with the presence of improvement and features of bone reaction to injury in images submitted by members as examples of healing. The second presented panel members with 28 pairs of serial images, 14 chosen to illustrate progression and 14 chosen to illustrate repair. Agreement was tested on 8 items: global judgment on which image in the pair was better, relative size of the erosion in the 2 images, judgment on which image was first, presence and extent of sclerosis, cortication, filling-in, remodeling, and reconstituting normal structure. Our results showed good agreement, among the 15 respondents, on global assessment of which image was better and which image showed the smaller erosion. Correct assignment of sequence was only slightly better than expected by chance (in 65% of the cases). Agreement was poor regarding the presence of morphologic features of bone repair. A majority of a panel of experts agreed on which 2nd images in a set of paired, serial images represented improvement and which showed progression based on global assessment of which was better and on size of erosion. Features of bone repair were not distinctive and did not enable the panel to deduce the correct sequence of the serial images. This study provides evidence that repair of bone damage in RA does occur, resulting in some degree of improvement, which was recognized by a majority of a panel of experts.

Bruynesteyn K, Van Der Heijde D, Boers M, Saudan A, Peloso P, Paulus H, Houben H, Griffiths B, Edmonds J, Bresnihan B, Boonen A, Van Der Linden S. · Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12415585 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether knowledge of the chronological sequence influences the sensitivity and specificity of the Sharp/van der Heijde (SvH) and Larsen/Scott (LS) scoring method to detect clinically important progression of joint damage caused by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the individual patient and assess whether scoring in chronological order leads to better sensitivity at the cost of lower specificity. METHODS: For both scoring methods, progression scores obtained with (chronological) and without knowledge of the sequence of the films (paired) were compared with the judgment of an international expert panel. This panel assessed whether progression of joint damage seen on films with 1 year intervals was clinically relevant (defined as progression of joint damage that would make clinicians change therapy). The applied thresholds for clinical relevance were (1) the progression scores with the highest accuracy by receiver operating characteristics analyses for the expert opinion, and (2) the smallest progression score that can be detected apart from interobserver measurement error by the scoring method, i.e., the smallest detectable difference (SDD). RESULTS: Progression scores that detected clinically relevant progression most accurately (chronological: 3.0 SvH units and 2.0 LS units; paired: 2.5 SvH units and 1.5 LS units) were smaller than the SDD (chronological 5.0 SvH units and 5.8 LS units; paired 13.8 SvH units and 9.7 LS units). With the SDD as threshold, the sensitivity to detect clinically relevant progression increased significantly from 20 to 60% for the SvH method and from 23 to 33% for the LS method if the sequence of the films was known. The specificity remained good when scoring chronologically: 88% for the SvH and 100% for the LS. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that knowing the chronological sequence leads to an increase in detecting clinically relevant changes in the patient without serious overestimation of nonrelevant differences. Analyzing a clinical trial should be done preferably by reading films in chronological order.

Van Der Heijde D. · Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University Hospital Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Ann Med Interne (Paris). · Pubmed #11937987 No free full text.

Abstract: This paper gives an overview of several aspects of the radiographic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Radiographs give important information about the structural damage caused by RA. On a group level, the natural progression follows a rather linear cause, but on an individual patient level, this can vary widely. Feet are often affected earlier and to a larger extent than hands. Both hands and feet give a good overall impression of the damage in the large joints and are sufficient to monitor the patient. It is recommended to take annual films of hands and feet to monitor patients. Several scoring methods are available for application in clinical trials. Most widely used are the Sharp and Larsen methods with their modifications. For use in clinical practice the SENS method is more feasible. Several drugs are capable of retarding radiographic progression. However, it is difficult to compare results across trials and these difficulties are elaborated.