One-year maintenance with routine assessment of patient index data 3-based remission may inhibit radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with routine clinical therapy: A retrospective comparison of radiographic outcome and its prognostic factors between maintained remissions with patient-reported outcome index and physician-oriented disease activity indices

Abstract

Objectives: We investigated whether the maintenance of routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3) remission for one year (RAPID3-MR) may predict good radiographic outcomes. We also compared radiographic progression to prognostic factors among patients with RAPID3-MR, with the maintenance of clinical disease activity index remission for one year (CDAI-MR) or with the maintenance of 28 joint count disease activity score remission for one year (DAS28-MR).

Methods: Of 1220 patients with available clinical data, 92 with RAPID3-MR, 80 with RAPID3-NMR (not satisfying RAPID3-MR), 45 with CDAI-MR, and 75 with DAS28-MR were retrospectively investigated. CDAI and DAS28 for clinical outcomes and the modified total Sharp score (mTSS) for radiographic joint damage were investigated for at least one year.

Results: RAPID3, CDAI, DAS28, and their categories remained unchanged or significantly improved in RAPID3-MR patients but significantly deteriorated in RAPID3-NMR patients. The mean annual ΔmTSS was significantly lower in RAPID3-MR patients (0.12 ± 0.55) than in RAPID3-NMR patients (0.54 ± 1.27) (p = 0.025). There was no significant difference among RAPID3-MR patients, CDAI-MR patients (0.06 ± 0.85), and DAS28-MR patients (0.11 ± 0.89). The baseline mTSS (p = 0.038) and monotherapy with nonbiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (p = 0.033) were good prognostic factors in RAPID3-MR patients.

Conclusions: One-year RAPID3 remission maintenance may predict good radiographic outcomes.

Keywords:

• Modified total Sharp score
• One-year maintenance
• RAPID3
• Remission
• Rheumatoid arthritis

View correction statement:

Erratum

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the patients who were involved in this study. We also would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing and Yujiro Kon, MD, PhD for helpful advice.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.