You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 73, Issue 3
  • Efficacy of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids and tofacitinib: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

Article Text

Article menu
Clinical and epidemiological research
Extended report
Efficacy of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids and tofacitinib: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis
  1. Cécile Gaujoux-Viala1,
  2. Jackie Nam2,3,
  3. Sofia Ramiro4,5,
  4. Robert Landewé6,
  5. Maya H Buch2,3,
  6. Josef S Smolen7,8,
  7. Laure Gossec9
  1. 1Department of Rheumatology, Nîmes University Hospital; EA 2415, Montpellier I University, Nîmes, France
  2. 2Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK
  3. 3NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
  4. 4Department of Clinical Immunology & Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  5. 5Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal
  6. 6Department of Clinical Immunology & Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam & Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands
  7. 7Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  8. 82nd Department of Medicine, Hietzing Hospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  9. 9Department of Rheumatology, UPMC Univ Paris 06, GRC-UPMC 08 (EEMOIS); AP-HP, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cécile Gaujoux-Viala, Service de Rhumatologie, CHU de Nîmes Carémeau, Place du Professeur Robert Debré, 30029 Nîmes cedex 9, France; cecilegaujouxviala{at}yahoo.fr

Abstract

Objectives To update a previous systematic review assessing the efficacy of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods Two systematic reviews of the literature using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were performed from 2009 until January 2013 to assess the efficacy of csDMARDs (as monotherapy or combination therapy) in adults with RA, and the efficacy of glucocorticoids in early RA. A third systematic review was performed until March 2013 to assess the efficacy of tofacitinib by meta-analysis.

Results For glucocorticoids, of 222 hits, five publications relating to four new trials were analysed for efficacy, confirming that initial treatment of RA with low-dose prednisone plus methotrexate (MTX) results in better clinical and structural outcomes at 1 and 2 years than treatment with MTX alone. For csDMARDs, of 498 studies, only two new studies were randomised controlled trials comparing MTX monotherapy with MTX in combination with another csDMARD without differences in glucocorticoid usage. Using tight control principles, clinical outcomes were no better with immediate triple therapy than with ‘step-up’ therapy. For tofacitinib, the pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that tofacitinib was more efficacious on signs and symptoms, disability and appeared to be more efficacious on structural damage than control treatment with placebo (OR (95% CI)—American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response: 2.44 (1.97 to 3.02)) or treatment with MTX (ACR20 response: 2.38 (1.66 to 3.43)).

Conclusions Addition of low-dose glucocorticoids to csDMARD therapy produces benefits in early RA. Under tight control conditions, combination therapy with csDMARDs is no better than MTX monotherapy. Tofacitinib is a new DMARD with proven efficacy.

  • Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • Treatment
  • Corticosteroids
  • DMARDs (synthetic)

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204588

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Introduction

    Since rheumatoid arthritis (RA) imposes a considerable burden for patients, their families and society, therapeutic approaches call for early intervention with, and timely adaptation of, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), either as monotherapy or as combination therapy, in order to avoid irreversible damage, long-term disability and premature death. In 2010 a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force aggregated the available information on RA treatment into practical recommendations,1 based on several systematic literature reviews (SLRs) providing the state of evidence at that time.2–4 DMARDs form two major classes: synthetic chemical compounds (synthetic DMARDs, sDMARDs) and biological agents (bDMARDs). We have now updated these 2009 searches to obtain the available published information on efficacy of synthetic DMARDs as monotherapy or combination therapy, with and without addition of glucocorticoids (GCs). Where appropriate, we will adhere to the recently proposed nomenclature for sDMARDs which, among other aspects, differentiates between conventional synthetic (cs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs.5

    Methods

    The four main research questions pertained to the efficacy on signs and symptoms, disability and joint damage. Topics considered were (1) the addition of GCs to csDMARDs in early RA; (2) methotrexate (MTX) as monotherapy versus its combination with other csDMARDs (disregarding the addition of biological agents discussed elsewhere)6; (3) individual csDMARDs and (4) tofacitinib, a new tsDMARD specifically targeted at inhibition of Janus kinases. Safety concerns were examined in a separate SLR.7 Tapering strategies for GCs were not dealt with in this SLR.

    Guidelines for SLRs were followed and are detailed in the online supplementary material.

    Study selection

    A SLR was performed in PubMed Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and major congress abstracts after January 2009 until January 2013 for GCs and csDMARDs and until March 2013 for tofacitinib. In addition, abstracts of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meetings 2011–2012 and EULAR Congresses 2011–2013 were screened and full publications related to such abstracts taken into account until mid-2013. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this analysis. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias.8

    Data collection

    Efficacy was assessed by the change in signs and symptoms and disability status between baseline and week 24, week 52 and week 104, when available, and by the change in radiographic joint damage between baseline and week 52 and week 104.

    Statistical analysis

    In each trial the effect size or the standardised response mean for continuous measures and ORs for dichotomous measures were determined to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect. Where possible, pooled effect size, pooled standardised response mean and pooled OR were calculated by meta-analysis, using the inverse of variance method. RevMan V.5.2 (Review Manager, Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012) statistical software was used. Statistical heterogeneity was tested by Q test and I2 test. All meta-analyses were carried out using random-effects models in cases of statistical heterogeneity.

    Results

    Glucocorticoids in early RA

    Of 222 potentially relevant articles, five new studies relating to four RCTs were included (table 1). The selection of articles is shown in online supplementary figure A. Of the five studies, two trials were open-label trials with a high ‘risk of bias’ score10–12; one study was reported only as an abstract at the 2011 EULAR congress10 and two studies were RCTs with a low ‘risk of bias’.9 ,13 The SAVE (Stop Arthritis Very Early) trial has a particular design since its objective was to prevent development of RA in patients with very early arthritis who did not yet meet RA classification criteria; it did not show efficacy of a single GC injection in this respect, irrespective of added csDMARDs.9 In the other studies all patients had early RA, with a mean disease duration of <1 year and a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) of between 5.0 and 5.9. Overall, initial treatment of RA with low-dose prednisone plus MTX showed higher rates of remission at 12 and 52 weeks, lower DAS at 24 weeks and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores at 24, 52 and 104 weeks (table 1).10–13 A highly informative study (CAMERA II (Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis trial-II)) reported the efficacy of GCs in a 2-year, prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial in 236 patients with early RA (duration <1 year). The MTX plus prednisone (10 mg/day) strategy was more effective than MTX plus placebo in reducing the progression of erosive joint damage at 104 weeks (primary outcome) (table 1). Patients receiving MTX plus prednisone attained sustained remission at an earlier time point during the trial than patients receiving MTX alone. In addition, the need for additional treatment (subcutaneous MTX, ciclosporin or adalimumab) was significantly lower in the MTX plus prednisone group than in the MTX monotherapy group.13

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Randomised controlled trials of glucocorticoids added to DMARDs in early arthritis

    Overall, there were no new safety concerns over 2 years beyond those previously reported.13–15

    csDMARDs

    Initially, 498 potentially relevant articles were screened by their abstracts.

    Efficacy of MTX in monotherapy versus in combination

    Two new studies were RCTs comparing MTX monotherapy with MTX in combination with another csDMARD, without differences in GC usage between the arms, in adult RA (selection process shown in online supplementary figure B).

    The tREACH study was a randomised, single-blinded clinical trial in patients with recent-onset arthritis who had a ‘high probability of progressing to persistent arthritis’, with three arms: (A) combination therapy with csDMARDs (MTX+sulfasalazine (SSZ)+hydroxychloroquine (HQ)) with intramuscular GCs (91 patients); (B) combination therapy with oral GCs starting at 15 mg/day and tapering over 10 weeks (93 patients) and (C) MTX with oral GCs (same tapering scheme, 93 patients). Medication was intensified to MTX+etanercept (50 mg/week) if the DAS44 was≥2.4 at 3 months,16 which is rather early in light of the time to maximal effects of csDMARDs and current recommendations.2 At 3 months (interim analysis) the change in DAS was similar in both arms with the triple combination and higher than in the arm with monotherapy (mean (SD) change: −1.4 (1.0), −1.5 (1.0) and −1.2 (1.0), respectively), but baseline scores for HAQ disability index, tender joint count and C-reactive protein were 10% higher in the monotherapy arm than in both combination arms.16 Other outcomes, such as change in HAQ score, swollen joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), did not differ across the groups,16 and the significant advantage of change in DAS score at 3 months was lost at 1 year.17

    The Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis (TEAR) study is a 2-year, randomised, double-blind trial with a two-by-two factorial design, of which two arms are pertinent for the current SLR: immediate oral triple therapy (MTX+SSZ+HQ) (132 patients), or step-up from MTX monotherapy to MTX+SSZ+HQ (124 patients) at week 24 if the DAS28-ESR was >3.2.18 The objective was to assess which approach is better—that is, to immediately treat all patients with early RA and a more severe phenotype (anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and/or rheumatoid factor positivity, or erosive disease) with combinations of DMARDs, or to reserve combination DMARD therapy for patients who do not have an appropriate response to monotherapy. The number of participants who did not complete this study was higher (32%) than the authors had originally expected (10%), resulting in loss of statistical power and interpretational problems. Furthermore, the main analysis presented was a completers-only analysis. An earlier improvement occurred with immediate combination arms, but after initial MTX monotherapy in those patients who lacked sufficient response a rapid improvement to similar levels as with immediate triple therapy was seen upon intensification of treatment. There were no radiographic advantages in favour of combination therapy. So, using principles of tight control and treat-to-target, clinical and radiographic benefits were no higher with immediate triple therapy than with ‘step-up’ therapy’.18

    Efficacy of csDMARDs

    Twenty-five studies were analysed. No new data conflicting with the previous conclusions were found. Several RCTs confirmed the efficacy of MTX as both first and second DMARD.19–24 Only one RCT included leflunomide: it compared MTX and leflunomide in 368 patients with early RA. Of the 240 subjects who were randomised and treated, 129 received leflunomide and 111 received MTX. This study showed that MTX was better than leflunomide for the four primary clinical efficacy endpoints (tender joint count, swollen joint count, physician and patient global assessment score). The difference was not statistically significant for the three secondary clinical efficacy endpoints (morning stiffness, pain intensity, HAQ).25 Very few studies confirmed the efficacy of sulfasalazine.26 ,27 The studies analysed did not provide new information on other csDMARDs.

    Tofacitinib

    Literature search results and trials characteristics

    Initially, 27 potentially relevant articles were screened. Finally, 10 RCTs were included—four phase II studies and six phase III trials (selection process is shown in online supplementary figure C). Studies’ and patients’ characteristics are detailed in table 2.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Randomised controlled trials of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis

    Efficacy of tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily

    The meta-analysis showed that tofacitinib was better than the respective control groups in its effect on signs and symptoms and physical function at 12, 24 and 52 weeks. As an example, the pooled OR (95% CI) for ACR20 response at 24 weeks versus placebo was 2.44 (1.97 to 3.02) (figure 1 and online supplementary material).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Efficacy of tofacitinib on ACR20 response criteria at 24 weeks.

    Radiographic progression was assessed in two studies. In the ORAL Start study (early RA, MTX-naïve) mean change in total Sharp–van der Heijde score (SHS) score at 6 months was 0.18 for tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily versus 0.84 for MTX monotherapy (p<0.05) and the proportion of ‘non-progressors’ (≤0.5 unit increase from baseline in total SHS) was 83.5% versus 70.5%, respectively.37 In the ORAL Scan study (established RA, MTX-inadequate responder), mean change in total SHS score was 0.12 versus 0.47 (p=0.079) at 24 weeks and 0.3 versus 1.0 (p=0.0558) at 52 weeks and the proportion of ‘non-progressors’ was 86% versus 74.1% (p≤0.05) at 52 weeks.32

    More details are shown in the online supplementary material.

    Discussion

    This SLR was performed to inform the EULAR task force involved in updating the 2010 recommendations for the management of RA on the efficacy of csDMARDs as monotherapy or combination therapy, with and without GCs in adult patients with RA. Overall, this SLR confirmed the SLRs performed in 20092–4 and expanded the overall insights.

    Although the place of GC therapy in early RA is still a matter of debate, previous studies have clearly shown the benefit of adding GCs to csDMARD monotherapy or combination therapy, whether at low (≤10 mg/day) or higher doses, especially in patients with early RA.38–41 In 2010, we suggested that GCs might be used as ‘bridge therapy’ before slow-acting DMARDs have taken full effect. Several new studies have confirmed these data. Interestingly, the tREACH trial showed that intramuscular and oral GCs are equally effective as bridging treatments16 and thus answered one of the research questions posed in 2010.1 Moreover, accumulating evidence suggests that low-dose treatment is well tolerated and similarly effective, while reducing the risk of side effects associated with higher doses.13 ,42 However, bone loss should be prevented using appropriate strategies.43 Further research is needed, especially into chronotherapy44 and intra-articular GC therapy.

    For combination therapy of csDMARDs, some studies suggest that triple therapy with MTX+SSZ+HQ may be better than MTX monotherapy in improving signs and symptoms.45 ,46 The tREACH study in its interim analysis at 3 months showed a somewhat faster improvement on DAS28 (but not on HAQ score, swollen joint count or ESR) with triple therapy+GCs than with MTX+GCs, but this difference was not maintained at 1 year.16 ,17

    Moreover the TEAR trial has shown that, using tight control and principles of treat-to-target, clinical, functional and structural outcomes were no better with immediate triple therapy than with ‘step-up’ therapy.18

    It has been difficult to interpret the results of several investigator-initiated pragmatic or effectiveness trials such as TEAR and tREACH and use them to choose the most appropriate treatment strategy. These trials are justified by clear practical clinical questions that go beyond whether a particular treatment is effective or not; however, the trial methodology is often so complicated that the trial performance and reporting may be jeopardised. Examples of these aspects are trials that do not reach their target number of patients (with lack of statistical power as a consequence), trials with high drop-out rates, or with relatively small numbers of patients (‘completers’) in which the primary endpoint has been assessed (with a risk of ‘bias by completion’), trials with an unplanned interim analysis or a change of primary endpoint (with the risk of convenience reporting, or reporting at odds with the definite results) and trials with an a priori superiority design that are reported with spurious non-inferiority conclusions.47 However, these studies explored valuable concepts that are of significant practical importance to rheumatologists and patients.

    There are some limitations to our analyses; some outcomes from some studies could not be included in this meta-analysis because we needed at least one measure of variability such as SD. Nevertheless, the current SLR informs the Task Force on the evidence that (i) addition of low-dose GC to csDMARD monotherapy or combination therapy increases overall efficacy; (ii) combination of csDMARDs as triple therapy, is efficacious, but MTX monotherapy appears to be similarly efficacious, especially when combined with GCs and employing a treat-to-target approach; (iii) tofacitinib is a clinically, structurally and functionally efficacious agent.

    Importantly, safety aspects were not covered here, since they were part of a separate SLR.7

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank Michel Viala for his help with the literature search.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Smolen JS,
      2. Landewé R,
      3. Breedveld FC,
      4. et al
      . EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:964–75.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Gaujoux-Viala C,
      2. Smolen JS,
      3. Landewé R,
      4. et al
      . Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1004–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Knevel R,
      2. Schoels M,
      3. Huizinga TWJ,
      4. et al
      . Current evidence for a strategic approach to the management of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:987–94.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Gorter SL,
      2. Bijlsma JW,
      3. Cutolo M,
      4. et al
      . Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1010–14.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Smolen JS,
      2. van der Heijde D,
      3. Machold KP,
      4. et al
      . Proposal for a new nomenclature of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:3–5.
    6. ↵
      1. Nam JL,
      2. Ramiro S,
      3. Gaujoux-Viala C,
      4. et al
      . Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs—a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:516–28.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Ramiro S,
      2. Gaujoux-Viala C,
      3. Nam JL,
      4. et al
      . Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs—a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:529–35.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Higgins JP,
      2. Altman DG
      . Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Fellow JPHSSV, Director SGF, éds. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008:187–241.
    9. ↵
      1. Machold KP,
      2. Landewé R,
      3. Smolen JS,
      4. et al
      . The Stop Arthritis Very Early (SAVE) trial, an international multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on glucocorticoids in very early arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:495–502.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Fedorenko E,
      2. Lukina GV,
      3. Sigidin YA,
      4. et al
      . Remission as the main goal of treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis patients: comparative efficacy of four treatment regimens. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70(Suppl 3):598.
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      1. Montecucco C,
      2. Todoerti M,
      3. Sakellariou G,
      4. et al
      . Low-dose oral prednisone improves clinical and ultrasonographic remission rates in early rheumatoid arthritis: results of a 12-month open-label randomised study. Arthritis Res Ther 2012;14:R112.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Todoerti M,
      2. Scirè CA,
      3. Boffini N,
      4. et al
      . Early disease control by low-dose prednisone comedication may affect the quality of remission in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010;1193:139–45.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Bakker MF,
      2. Jacobs JWG,
      3. Welsing PMJ,
      4. et al
      . Low-dose prednisone inclusion in a methotrexate-based, tight control strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:329–39.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Duru N,
      2. van der Goes MC,
      3. Jacobs JW,
      4. et al
      . EULAR evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations on the management of medium to high-dose glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1905–13.
    15. ↵
      1. van Tuyl LH,
      2. Boers M,
      3. Lems WF,
      4. et al
      . Survival, comorbidities and joint damage 11 years after the COBRA combination therapy trial in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:807–12.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. De Jong PH,
      2. Hazes JM,
      3. Barendregt PJ,
      4. et al
      . Induction therapy with a combination of DMARDs is better than methotrexate monotherapy: first results of the tREACH trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:72–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      1. De Jong PH,
      2. Hazes JM,
      3. Luime JJ,
      4. et al
      . Randomized comparison of triple DMARD therapy with methotrexate monotherapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72(Suppl 3):113.
      OpenUrl
    18. ↵
      1. Moreland LW,
      2. O'Dell JR,
      3. Paulus HE,
      4. et al
      . A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2824–35.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Hobl EL,
      2. Mader RM,
      3. Jilma B,
      4. et al
      . A randomized, double-blind, parallel, single-site pilot trial to compare two different starting doses of methotrexate in methotrexate-naïve adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Ther 2012;34:1195–203.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Klarenbeek NB,
      2. Güler-Yüksel M,
      3. van der Kooij SM,
      4. et al
      . The impact of four dynamic, goal-steered treatment strategies on the 5-year outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the BeSt study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1039–46.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Rezaei H,
      2. Saevarsdottir S,
      3. Forslind K,
      4. et al
      . In early rheumatoid arthritis, patients with a good initial response to methotrexate have excellent 2-year clinical outcomes, but radiological progression is not fully prevented: data from the methotrexate responders population in the SWEFOT trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:186–91.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. van der Kooij SM,
      2. Goekoop-Ruiterman YP,
      3. de Vries-Bouwstra JK,
      4. et al
      . Drug-free remission, functioning and radiographic damage after 4 years of response-driven treatment in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:914–21.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Wevers-de Boer K,
      2. Visser K,
      3. Heimans L,
      4. et al
      . Remission induction therapy with methotrexate and prednisone in patients with early rheumatoid and undifferentiated arthritis (the IMPROVED study). Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1472–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      1. Schipper LG,
      2. Fransen J,
      3. Barrera P,
      4. et al
      . Methotrexate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis after failure to sulphasalazine: to switch or to add? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009;48:1247–53.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Ishaq M,
      2. Muhammad JS,
      3. Hameed K,
      4. et al
      . Leflunomide or methotrexate? Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety in low socio-economic rheumatoid arthritis patients. Mod Rheumatol 2011;21:375–80.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Rantalaiho V,
      2. Korpela M,
      3. Laasonen L,
      4. et al
      . Early combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and tight disease control improve long-term radiologic outcome in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the 11-year results of the Finnish Rheumatoid Arthritis Combination Therapy trial. Arthritis Res Ther 2010;12:R122.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Nakajima M,
      2. Ueda N,
      3. Ohara H,
      4. et al
      . A comparative study of the effects of bucillamine and salazosulfapyridine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol 2009;19:384–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Kremer JM,
      2. Bloom BJ,
      3. Breedveld FC,
      4. et al
      . The safety and efficacy of a JAK inhibitor in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIa trial of three dosage levels of CP-690,550 versus placebo. Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:1895–905.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Tanaka Y,
      2. Suzuki M,
      3. Nakamura H,
      4. et al
      . Phase II study of tofacitinib (CP-690,550) combined with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:1150–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
      1. Kremer JM,
      2. Cohen S,
      3. Wilkinson BE,
      4. et al
      . A phase IIb dose-ranging study of the oral JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (CP-690,550) versus placebo in combination with background methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate alone. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:970–81.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Fleischmann R,
      2. Cutolo M,
      3. Genovese MC,
      4. et al
      . Phase IIb dose-ranging study of the oral JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (CP-690,550) or adalimumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:617–29.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Van der Heijde D,
      2. Tanaka Y,
      3. Fleischmann R,
      4. et al
      . Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate: twelve-month data from a twenty-four-month phase III randomized radiographic study. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:559–70.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Kremer J,
      2. Li ZG,
      3. Hall S,
      4. et al
      . Tofacitinib (cp-690,550), an oral JAK inhibitor, in combination with traditional DMARDs: phase 3 study in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to DMARDs. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70(Suppl 3):170.
      OpenUrl
      1. Van Vollenhoven RF,
      2. Fleischmann R,
      3. Cohen S,
      4. et al
      . Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:508–19.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Burmester GR,
      2. Blanco R,
      3. Charles-Schoeman C,
      4. et al
      . Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013;381:451–60.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Fleischmann R,
      2. Kremer J,
      3. Cush J,
      4. et al
      . Placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:495–507.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Lee EB,
      2. Fleischmann R,
      3. Hall S,
      4. et al
      . Radiographic, clinical and functional comparison of tofacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate in methotrexate-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64(Suppl 10):S1049.
      OpenUrl
    38. ↵
      1. Kirwan JR
      . The effect of glucocorticoids on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis. The Arthritis and Rheumatism Council Low-Dose Glucocorticoid Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995;333:142–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Wassenberg S,
      2. Rau R,
      3. Steinfeld P,
      4. et al
      . Very low-dose prednisolone in early rheumatoid arthritis retards radiographic progression over two years: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3371–80.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. Van Everdingen AA,
      2. Jacobs JWG,
      3. Siewertsz Van Reesema DR,
      4. et al
      . Low-dose prednisone therapy for patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis: clinical efficacy, disease-modifying properties and side effects: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:1–12.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Svensson B,
      2. Boonen A,
      3. Albertsson K,
      4. et al
      . Low-dose prednisolone in addition to the initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis reduces joint destruction and increases the remission rate: a two-year randomized trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3360–70.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Da Silva JAP,
      2. Jacobs JWG,
      3. Kirwan JR,
      4. et al
      . Safety of low dose glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: published evidence and prospective trial data. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:285–93.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. van der Goes MC,
      2. Jacobs JW,
      3. Jurgens MS,
      4. et al
      . Are changes in bone mineral density different between groups of early rheumatoid arthritis patients treated according to atight control strategy with or without prednisone if osteoporosis prophylaxis is applied? Osteoporos Int 2013;24:1429–36.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Buttgereit F,
      2. Doering G,
      3. Schaeffler A,
      4. et al
      . Efficacy of modified-release versus standard prednisone to reduce duration of morning stiffness of the joints in rheumatoid arthritis (CAPRA-1): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;371:205–14.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. O'Dell JR,
      2. Haire CE,
      3. Erikson N,
      4. et al
      . Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of all three medications. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1287–91.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. O'Dell JR,
      2. Leff R,
      3. Paulsen G,
      4. et al
      . Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate and sulfasalazine, or a combination of the three medications: results of a two-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:1164–70.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    47. ↵
      1. Fleischmann R,
      2. Kavanaugh A,
      3. Smolen J
      . Methodological aspects and the interpretation of clinical trial data: lessons from the TEAR trial. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52:409–10.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Francis Berenbaum

    • Contributors All authors contributed and finally approved the current manuscript.

    • Competing interests CG-V—consultation and/or speaking engagements: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB; research funding: Expanscience, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer. JN—consultation and/or speaking engagements: UCB. SR—consultation and/or speaking engagements: Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia. RL—consultation and/or speaking engagements: Abbott/AbbVie, Ablynx, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Centocor, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB, Wyeth; research funding: Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB, Wyeth. MHB—consultation and/or speaking engagements: Abbott, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Chugai, Pfizer, Roche; research funding: Pfizer. JSS—consultation and/or speaking engagements: Abbott/Abbvie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneka, BMS, Celgene, Glaxo, Infinity, Janssen, Lilly, Medimmune, Menarini, MSD, Novo-Nordsik, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Vertex; research funding: Abbott, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB. LG—consultation and/or speaking engagements: Abbott, BMS, Chugai, Pfizer, Roche, UCB.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles