HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Web only figure Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Strand, V Articles by van der Heijde, D Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Strand, V Articles by van der Heijde, D

Using estimated yearly progression rates to compare radiographic data across recent randomised controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis

¹ Stanford University, Division of Immunology, Palo Alto, CA, USA
² Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr V Strand, 306 Ramona Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028, USA;
vstrand@aol.com

Keywords: rheumatoid arthritis; randomised controlled trials; radiographic damage

Abbreviations: CRP, C reactive protein; IL1Ra, interleukin 1 receptor antagonist; RCTs, randomised controlled trials

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

This review is based on publications and presented abstracts from six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis assessing treatment effects on radiographic measures of disease progression. Each used the Sharp scoring method to assess changes in erosions and joint space narrowing from baseline.^1–3 These RCTs showed that the newly approved synthetic and biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, leflunomide, infliximab, etanercept, and Anakinra, were effective, and confirmed the efficacy of sulfasalazine and methotrexate in retarding disease progression.^4–13 Provided that sample sizes are adequate, randomisation within a protocol accounts for the heterogeneity of disease populations and yields linear progression rates over time.¹⁴

Each RCT enrolled a unique patient group with significantly different demographics and baseline disease characteristics across the trials, although well balanced within each protocol. Because of these population differences it is not appropriate to compare directly changes in total composite (Sharp) scores across trials. However, it . . . [Full text of this article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H K Genant, C G Peterfy, R Westhovens, J-C Becker, R Aranda, G Vratsanos, J Teng, and J M Kremer Abatacept inhibits progression of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the long-term extension of the AIM trial Ann Rheum Dis, August 1, 2008; 67(8): 1084 - 1089. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M C Wick, S Lindblad, R J Weiss, L Klareskog, and R F van Vollenhoven Estimated prediagnosis radiological progression: an important tool for studying the effects of early disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis Ann Rheum Dis, January 1, 2005; 64(1): 134 - 137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K Bruynesteyn, R Landewe, S. van der Linden, and D van der Heijde Radiography as primary outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: acceptable sample sizes for trials with 3 months' follow up Ann Rheum Dis, November 1, 2004; 63(11): 1413 - 1418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D van der Heijde, J Kalden, D Scott, J Smolen, and V Strand Long term evaluation of radiographic disease progression in a subset of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with leflunomide beyond 2 years Ann Rheum Dis, June 1, 2004; 63(6): 737 - 739. [Abstract] [Full Text]