Among RA patients with low disease activity or remission, a PRO-based tele-health followup for tight control of disease activity in RA can achieve similar disease control as conventional outpatient followup. The degree of disease control did not differ between patients seen by rheumatologists or rheumatology nurses.

Objective To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Design Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. Setting Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. Participants Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. Interventions Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. Results 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval −5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and −0.6% (−10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. Conclusions All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis. Trial registration EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815 .

Both early DMARD-naive and chronic RA were associated with higher plasma adiponectin compared to healthy controls, but lower plasma adiponectin than OA. Adiponectin increased 13% during MTX treatment. In patients with RA and OA body mass index, age, sex, and disease activity measures failed to explain the findings.

Objective:To justify and describe an integrated rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain prior to evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.Method:The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was used as a structural framework for the description of the integrated rehabilitation programme. As a part of the description, the Medical Research Council guidance, ‘Developing and evaluating complex interventions’, was used as a framework to justify the integrated rehabilitation programme.Intervention description:The integrated rehabilitation programme adopts a participatory biopsychosocial approach integrating inpatient activities supported by a multidisciplinary team and learning located within the patient’s own environment. The integrated rehabilitation programme comprises 3 weeks of inpatient stay and 11 weeks of home-based activities. The inpatient part of the programme consists of 38 clinical activities, some of them delivered more than once. The 38 clinical activities were described in an activity sheet developed for this purpose, combining five items from the TIDieR.Conclusion:An integrated rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain has been justified and described. The intervention description is currently being used for successful structuring and standardization of the content and delivery of the integrated rehabilitation programme in a randomized controlled trial.Trail registration:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02884466.