Carson Maynard1, Ted R Mikuls2, Grant W Cannon3, Bryant R England2, Philip G Conaghan4, Mikkel Østergaard5, Daniel G Baker6, Gail Kerr7, Michael D George1, Jennifer L Barton8, Joshua F Baker9. 1. University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia. 2. Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System and University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 3. Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 4. University of Leeds and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK. 5. Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Horsham, Pennsylvania. 7. Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Georgetown University, and Howard University, Washington, DC. 8. Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon. 9. Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In rheumatoid arthritis, whether women are less likely to achieve low disease activity is unclear. We evaluated sex differences in remission and low disease activity, comparing different clinical and imaging measures. METHODS: We used data from the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry and from 2 clinical trials. Remission and low disease activity were defined using composite scores, individual items (tender joints, swollen joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and evaluator/patient global assessment), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In the VARA registry, we assessed the likelihood of point remission at any time during follow-up using logistic regression, and time to sustained remission (2 consecutive visits) using Cox proportional hazards models. In the clinical trials, logistic regression models evaluated the likelihood of low clinical and MRI activity at 52 weeks. RESULTS: Among 2,463 patients in VARA, women (10.2%) were less likely to be in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)-ESR remission in follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 0.71 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.55-0.91]; P < 0.01) and had a longer time to sustained DAS28-ESR remission. This difference was not observed for DAS28-CRP, Clinical Disease Activity Index, or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3. Women were more likely to achieve favorable individual components except for an ESR <30 mm/hour (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.57-0.90]; P < 0.01). Among 353 trial participants (83.7% women), women had reduced rates of DAS28-ESR remission (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.21-0.72]; P = 0.003) but similar rates of low MRI synovitis and osteitis. CONCLUSION: The comparison of remission rates between men and women varies based on the disease activity measure, with sex-specific differences in ESR resulting in reliably lower rates of remission among women. There were no differences in MRI measures.
OBJECTIVE: In rheumatoid arthritis, whether women are less likely to achieve low disease activity is unclear. We evaluated sex differences in remission and low disease activity, comparing different clinical and imaging measures. METHODS: We used data from the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry and from 2 clinical trials. Remission and low disease activity were defined using composite scores, individual items (tender joints, swollen joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and evaluator/patient global assessment), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In the VARA registry, we assessed the likelihood of point remission at any time during follow-up using logistic regression, and time to sustained remission (2 consecutive visits) using Cox proportional hazards models. In the clinical trials, logistic regression models evaluated the likelihood of low clinical and MRI activity at 52 weeks. RESULTS: Among 2,463 patients in VARA, women (10.2%) were less likely to be in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)-ESR remission in follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 0.71 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.55-0.91]; P < 0.01) and had a longer time to sustained DAS28-ESR remission. This difference was not observed for DAS28-CRP, Clinical Disease Activity Index, or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3. Women were more likely to achieve favorable individual components except for an ESR <30 mm/hour (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.57-0.90]; P < 0.01). Among 353 trial participants (83.7% women), women had reduced rates of DAS28-ESR remission (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.21-0.72]; P = 0.003) but similar rates of low MRI synovitis and osteitis. CONCLUSION: The comparison of remission rates between men and women varies based on the disease activity measure, with sex-specific differences in ESR resulting in reliably lower rates of remission among women. There were no differences in MRI measures.
Authors: Liseth Siemons; Harald E Vonkeman; Peter M ten Klooster; Piet L C M van Riel; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Damini Jawaheer; Susan Messing; George Reed; Veena K Ranganath; Joel M Kremer; James S Louie; Dinesh Khanna; Jeffrey D Greenberg; Daniel E Furst Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Mikkel Østergaard; Paul Emery; Daniel G Baker; Philip G Conaghan Journal: Clin Exp Rheumatol Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 4.473
Authors: Michael D George; Mikkel Østergaard; Philip G Conaghan; Paul Emery; Daniel G Baker; Joshua F Baker Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Paul Emery; Roy M Fleischmann; Larry W Moreland; Elizabeth C Hsia; Ingrid Strusberg; Patrick Durez; Peter Nash; Eric Jason B Amante; Melvin Churchill; Won Park; Bernardo Antonio Pons-Estel; Mittie K Doyle; Sudha Visvanathan; Weichun Xu; Mahboob U Rahman Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-08
Authors: Jasvinder A Singh; Kenneth G Saag; S Louis Bridges; Elie A Akl; Raveendhara R Bannuru; Matthew C Sullivan; Elizaveta Vaysbrot; Christine McNaughton; Mikala Osani; Robert H Shmerling; Jeffrey R Curtis; Daniel E Furst; Deborah Parks; Arthur Kavanaugh; James O'Dell; Charles King; Amye Leong; Eric L Matteson; John T Schousboe; Barbara Drevlow; Seth Ginsberg; James Grober; E William St Clair; Elizabeth Tindall; Amy S Miller; Timothy McAlindon Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Tuulikki Sokka; Merete Lund Hetland; Heidi Mäkinen; Hannu Kautiainen; Kim Hørslev-Petersen; Reijo K Luukkainen; Bernard Combe; Humeira Badsha; Alexandros A Drosos; Joe Devlin; Gianfranco Ferraccioli; Alessia Morelli; Monique Hoekstra; Maria Majdan; Stefan Sadkiewicz; Miguel Belmonte; Ann-Carin Holmqvist; Ernest Choy; Gerd R Burmester; Recep Tunc; Aleksander Dimić; Jovan Nedović; Aleksandra Stanković; Martin Bergman; Sergio Toloza; Theodore Pincus Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-09
Authors: E C Keystone; M C Genovese; L Klareskog; E C Hsia; S T Hall; P C Miranda; J Pazdur; S-C Bae; W Palmer; J Zrubek; M Wiekowski; S Visvanathan; Z Wu; M U Rahman Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Enriqueta Vallejo-Yagüe; Julia N Pfund; Theresa Burkard; Carole Clair; Raphael Micheroli; Burkhard Möller; Axel Finckh; Andrea M Burden Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Harris A Ahmad; Joshua F Baker; Philip G Conaghan; Paul Emery; Thomas W J Huizinga; Yedid Elbez; Subhashis Banerjee; Mikkel Østergaard Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Nicola Luigi Bragazzi; Charlie Bridgewood; Abdulla Watad; Giovanni Damiani; Dennis McGonagle Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Stephanie Q Duong; Cynthia S Crowson; Arjun Athreya; Elizabeth J Atkinson; John M Davis; Kenneth J Warrington; Eric L Matteson; Richard Weinshilboum; Liewei Wang; Elena Myasoedova Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.606