Objective To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy.Design Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial.Setting Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015.Participants 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded.Interventions 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years.Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set.Results 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval −7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events.Conclusions The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.

During the last decade, baseline RA disease activity level at the time of starting MTX as well as TNFi+MTX decreased from high to moderate. A more than twofold increase in 6-month remission rates was observed in both groups. Our findings indicate that clinicians have implemented modern, more aggressive treatment strategies, which hopefully will lead to better long-term disease outcomes.

ObjectivesTo compare the presentation of seropositive and seronegative early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients classified according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria.MethodsAll patients had symptom duration from first swollen joint <2 years and were DMARD naïve with an indication for DMARD treatment. Patients were stratified as seropositive (positive rheumatoid factor (RF)+ and/or anticitrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA)+) or seronegative (RF− and ACPA−), and disease characteristics were compared between groups.ResultsA total of 234 patients were included, and 36 (15.4%) were seronegative. Ultrasonography (US) scores for joints (median 55 vs 25, p<0.001) and tendons (median 3 vs 0, p<0.001), number of swollen joints (median 17 vs 8, p<0.001), disease activity score (DAS; mean 3.9 vs 3.4, p=0.03) and physician global assessment (mean 49.1 vs 38.9, p=0.006) were significantly higher in seronegative patients compared with seropositive. Total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, Richie Articular Index and patient-reported outcome measures were similar between groups.ConclusionsSeronegative patients had higher levels of inflammation, assessed both clinically and by US, than seropositive patients. These differences may reflect the high number of involved joints required for seronegative patients to fulfil the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for RA.Trial registration numberNCT01205854; Pre-results.

NCT01205854; Post-results.

ObjectivesRecent studies suggest that implementation of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) leads to higher inflammatory activity in seronegative compared with seropositive patients at time of diagnosis. Our aim was to compare the disease course in seronegative and seropositive patients classified according to the 2010 criteria.MethodsDMARD-naïve patients with RA fulfilling the 2010 criteria were included in the treat-to-target ARCTIC trial and followed for 24 months. We stratified patients as seropositive (rheumatoid factor (RF)+, anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)+ or both) or seronegative (RF– and ACPA–) and compared disease activity, radiographic progression, treatment response and remission rates across groups.Results230 patients were included with mean (SD) age 51.4 (13.7) years, and 61% were female. 34 patients (15%) were seronegative. At 24  months, disease activity measures, radiographic progression and remission rates were similar between groups, despite more inflammatory activity in seronegative patients at baseline. Treatment response was slower in seronegative compared with seropositive patients. The groups received similar treatment.ConclusionOur findings suggest that among patients with RA classified according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria, seronegative patients respond well to modern treatment strategies. However, treatment response was somewhat slower in seronegative patients and radiographic progression was similar in seronegative and seropositive patients. Our results indicate that seronegative RA is not a mild form of the disease and requires intensive treat-to-target therapy similar to treatment of seropositive RA.

ObjectiveTo explore associations between remission, based on clinical and ultrasound definitions, and future good radiographic and physical outcome in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsNewly diagnosed patients with RA followed a treat-to-target strategy incorporating ultrasound information in the Aiming for Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial examining the benefit of ultrasound in a Clinical TIght Control regimen (ARCTIC) trial. We defined 6-month remission according to Disease Activity Score, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate, American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) Boolean criteria, Simplified Disease Activity Index, Clinical Disease Activity Index and two ultrasound definitions (no power Doppler signal, grey scale score ≤2). Two outcomes were defined: no radiographic progression and good outcome (no radiographic progression+physical function≥general population median), both sustained 12–24 months. We calculated the ORs of these outcomes for the remission definitions.ResultsOf 103 patients, 42%–82% reached remission at 6 months, dependent on definition. Seventy-one per cent of patients had no radiographic progression and 37% had good outcome. An association between 6-month remission and no radiographic progression was observed for ACR/EULAR Boolean remission (44 joints, OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 8.4), ultrasound power Doppler (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 10.0) and grey scale remission (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 8.0). All clinical, but not ultrasound remission criteria were associated with achievement of a good outcome.ConclusionsOur data support ACR/EULAR Boolean remission based on 44 joints as the preferred treatment target in early RA. Absence of ultrasound inflammation was associated with no radiographic progression.Trial registration numberNCT01205854; Post-results.

BackgroundAnti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) reactivities precede clinical onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and it has been suggested that ACPA reactivities towards distinct target proteins may be associated with differences in RA phenotypes. We aimed to assess the prevalence of baseline ACPA reactivities in an inception cohort of patients with early RA, and to investigate their associations with disease activity, treatment response, ultrasound findings and radiographic damage.MethodsDisease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with early RA, classified according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria, were included in the ARCTIC trial and assessed in the present analysis. During follow up, patients were monitored frequently and treatment was adjusted according to a predetermined protocol, starting with methotrexate monotherapy with prednisolone bridging. Analysis of 16 different ACPA reactivities targeting citrullinated peptides from fibrinogen, alpha-1 enolase, vimentin, filaggrin and histone was performed using a multiplex chip-based assay. Samples from 0, 3, 12 and 24 months were analysed. Controls were blood donors with similar characteristics to the patients (age, gender, smoking status).ResultsA total of 217 patients and 94 controls were included. Median [25, 75 percentile] number of ACPA reactivities in all patients was 9 [4, 12], and were most prevalent in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide /rheumatoid factor-positive patients 10 [7, 12]. Disease activity measures and ultrasound scores at baseline were lower in ACPA reactivity-positive compared to ACPA reactivity-negative patients. ACPA reactivity levels decreased after 3 months of DMARD treatment, most pronounced for fibrinogenβ 60–74 to 62% of baseline antibody level, with least change in filaggrin 307–324 to 81% of baseline antibody level, both p < 0.001. However, outcomes in disease activity measures, ultrasound and radiographic scores after 12 and 24 months were not associated with baseline levels or changes in ACPA reactivity levels and/or seroreversion after 3 months.ConclusionsThe clinical relevance of analysing ACPA reactivities in intensively treated and closely monitored early RA was limited, with no apparent associations with disease activity, prediction of treatment response or radiographic progression. Further studies in larger patient materials are needed to understand the role of ACPA reactivities in patients with RA classified according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria and treated according to modern treatment strategies.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01205854. Registered on 21 September 2010.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1635-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

NCT01205854, ACTRN12610000284066.