Article Text

AB0454 EULAR-DAS28 versus RAPID3 for treatment monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tnf inhibitors
  1. C.M. Ancuta1,
  2. E. Ancuta2,
  3. C. Belibou3,
  4. R. Chirieac1
  1. 1Rheumatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”-Iasi
  2. 2Research Department, Cuza-Voda Hospital
  3. 3University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”-Iasi, Iasi, Romania


Background treat-to-target and tight control strategies are actually the two main paradigms in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), aiming to improve patients outcome by achieving either remission or minimal disease activity status. There is actually no consensus regarding the right assessment tools for monitoring the magnitude of improvement and the absolute reached level in routine clinical practice.

Objectives to compare EULAR-DAS28 with RAPID3 (a patient-reported outcome based on pain, patient global assessment of disease activity, and multidimensional HAQ)response criteria in patients with moderate to severe active RA treated with anti-TNF agents

Methods retrospective observational study on 178 moderate to severe active RA (DAS28>3.2) receiving anti-TNFs (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab). Response to treatment was appreciated after 12 months of biologics based on (i) EULAR-DAS28 response criteria, classified as EULAR good (decrease with 1.2 units), moderate (decrease of 0.6–1.2 units) or non-responder (decrease ≤0.6 units); and (ii) RAPID3 response categories defined as good (decrease with 3.6 units), moderate (decrease of 1.8–3.6 units) and poor (decrease ≤1.8 units).

Statistical analysis was done in SPSS.16 (weighted kappa statistics, p<0.05.

Results up to 67% of RA (120) has been classified as good and moderate responders based on RAPID3, while about 60% (107) have been responders according to EULAR-DAS28 at 12 months; moreover, half of the RAPID3 good responders have also been categorized as moderate EULAR-DAS28 responders. Moderate agreement between the EULAR-DAS28 response criteria and RAPID3 has been demonstrated (p<0.05).

Conclusions Patient-centered tools such as RAPID3 allow more easily and quickly to quantify disease activity levels and patient responses to therapy, providing a more complex insight into the patient’s perception of disease status.

Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.