Kristian Stengaard-Pedersen

Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: the IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  • Signe Møller-Bisgaard, Slagelse Hospital, Rigshospitalet
  • ,
  • Kim Hørslev-Petersen, King Christian x'S Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases
  • ,
  • Bo Ejbjerg, Slagelse Hospital, Zealand University Hospital
  • ,
  • Merete Lund Hetland, Rigshospitalet, Københavns Universitet
  • ,
  • Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg, Rigshospitalet
  • ,
  • Daniel Glinatsi, Rigshospitalet
  • ,
  • Jakob Møller, Herlev University Hospital
  • ,
  • Mikael Boesen, Frederiksberg Hospital
  • ,
  • Robin Christensen, Frederiksberg Hospital, Odense Universitetshospital
  • ,
  • Kristian Stengaard-Pedersen
  • Ole Rintek Madsen, Gentofte Hospital
  • ,
  • Bente Jensen, Frederiksberg Hospital
  • ,
  • Jan Alexander Villadsen
  • Ellen Margrethe Hauge
  • Philip Bennett, Gentofte Hospital
  • ,
  • Oliver Hendricks, King Christian x'S Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases
  • ,
  • Karsten Asmussen, Frederiksberg Hospital
  • ,
  • Marcin Kowalski, Vendsyssel Hospital, Hjørring
  • ,
  • Hanne Lindegaard, Odense Universitetshospital
  • ,
  • Sabrina Mai Nielsen, Frederiksberg Hospital, Odense Universitetshospital
  • ,
  • Henning Bliddal, Frederiksberg Hospital
  • ,
  • Niels Steen Krogh, Zitelab Aps
  • ,
  • Torkell Ellingsen, Department of Rheumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
  • ,
  • Agnete H. Nielsen
  • ,
  • Lone Balding, Herlev University Hospital
  • ,
  • Anne Grethe Jurik
  • Henrik S. Thomsen, Herlev University Hospital
  • ,
  • Mikkel Østergaard, Rigshospitalet, Københavns Universitet

IMPORTANCE Whether using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves disease activity and slows joint damage progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy vs a conventional clinical treat-to-target strategy improves outcomes in patients with RA in clinical remission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two-year, randomized, multicenter trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Denmark. Two hundred patients with RA in clinical remission (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to an MRI-guided vs a conventional treat-to-target strategy. In the MRI-guided group, the treatment goal was absence of MRI bone marrow edema combined with clinical remission, defined as DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less and no swollen joints. In the conventional group, the treatment goal was clinical remission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Co-primary outcomeswere proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and with no radiographic progression (no increase in total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) at 24 months. Significance testing for the primary outcome was based on 1-sided testing. Secondary outcomes were clinical and MRI measures of disease activity, physical function, and quality of life. RESULTS Of 200 patients randomized (133 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 61.6 [10.5] years; median baseline DAS28-CRP, 1.9 [interquartile range, 1.7-2.2]; van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, 18.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-42.5]), 76 patients (76%) in the MRI-guided group and 95 (95%) in the conventional group completed the study. Of these, 64 (85%) vs 83 (88%), respectively, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, -4.8%[1-sided 95%CI, -13.6%to + ∞; 1-sided P = .19]) and 49 (66%) vs 58 (62%), respectively, reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7%[1-sided 95%CI, -7.0% to + ∞; 1-sided P = .25). Of 10 key secondary end points, 8 were null and 2 showed statistically significant benefit for the MRI treat-to-target group. Seventeen patients (17%) in the MRI-guided treat-to-target group and 6 patients (6%) in the conventional treat-to-target group experienced serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA in clinical remission, an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy did not result in improved disease activity remission rates or reduce radiographic progression. These findings do not support the use of an MRI-guided strategy for treating patients with RA.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume321
Issue5
Pages (from-to)461-472
Number of pages12
ISSN0098-7484
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2019

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 164665383