Objective: Although treat-to-target (T2T) strategies are effective in early RA patients, important individual variations exist in the course towards remission. Growth mixture modeling (GMM) provides more insight into this heterogeneity by identifying subgroups of patients with similar response patterns. This study aimed to identify distinct trajectories of disease activity in early RA patients following a T2T strategy, during their first year. Methods: Data on various clinical and patient-reported measures were collected from the DREAM remission induction cohort. GMM was applied to examine the impact of T2T on subgroups characterized by different types of growth trajectories, as measured with the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints. Results: Three distinct trajectories of disease activity were found. The normative trajectory contained most patients (82.6%), showing a quickly decreasing disease activity, stabilizing at remission after 9 months. This group performed best on clinical and patient-reported measures over time and were more likely to be men. A smaller group (14.1%) also approached remission, but demonstrated a slower response to treatment. Finally, a minority (3.3%) showed no improvement after 1 year, despite an initial quick decrease in disease activity during the first months of treatment. Conclusion: Disease activity in early RA patients during the first year of a T2T strategy does not follow a linear pattern, nor is a single developmental trajectory applicable to all patients. Future studies should attempt to identify more specific risk factors for poor outcome to enable early identification of patients in need of alternative therapeutic approaches.
Objective: Although treat-to-target (T2T) strategies are effective in early RApatients, important individual variations exist in the course towards remission. Growth mixture modeling (GMM) provides more insight into this heterogeneity by identifying subgroups of patients with similar response patterns. This study aimed to identify distinct trajectories of disease activity in early RApatients following a T2T strategy, during their first year. Methods: Data on various clinical and patient-reported measures were collected from the DREAM remission induction cohort. GMM was applied to examine the impact of T2T on subgroups characterized by different types of growth trajectories, as measured with the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints. Results: Three distinct trajectories of disease activity were found. The normative trajectory contained most patients (82.6%), showing a quickly decreasing disease activity, stabilizing at remission after 9 months. This group performed best on clinical and patient-reported measures over time and were more likely to be men. A smaller group (14.1%) also approached remission, but demonstrated a slower response to treatment. Finally, a minority (3.3%) showed no improvement after 1 year, despite an initial quick decrease in disease activity during the first months of treatment. Conclusion: Disease activity in early RApatients during the first year of a T2T strategy does not follow a linear pattern, nor is a single developmental trajectory applicable to all patients. Future studies should attempt to identify more specific risk factors for poor outcome to enable early identification of patients in need of alternative therapeutic approaches.
Authors: Peter M Ten Klooster; Martijn A H Oude Voshaar; Walid Fakhouri; Inmaculada de la Torre; Claudia Nicolay; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Liseth Siemons; Peter M ten Klooster; Harald E Vonkeman; Mart A F J van de Laar; Cees A W Glas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Liseth Siemons; Peter M Ten Klooster; Harald E Vonkeman; Piet L C M van Riel; Cees A W Glas; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Laura M M Steunebrink; Harald E Vonkeman; Peter M ten Klooster; Monique Hoekstra; Piet L C M van Riel; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: D S Courvoisier; D Alpizar-Rodriguez; J E Gottenberg; M V Hernandez; F Iannone; E Lie; M J Santos; K Pavelka; C Turesson; X Mariette; D Choquette; M L Hetland; A Finckh Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Cheryl Barnabe; Ye Sun; Gilles Boire; Carol A Hitchon; Boulos Haraoui; J Carter Thorne; Diane Tin; Désirée van der Heijde; Jeffrey R Curtis; Shahin Jamal; Janet E Pope; Edward C Keystone; Susan Bartlett; Vivian P Bykerk Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: L M M Steunebrink; G A Versteeg; H E Vonkeman; P M Ten Klooster; H H Kuper; T R Zijlstra; P L C M van Riel; M A F J van de Laar Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Philip D H Hamann; John D Pauling; Neil McHugh; Kimme Hyrich; Gavin Shaddick Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 7.580