Methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis is frequently effective, even if re-employed after a previous failure

Effectiveness of therapy with individual disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is limited, and the number of available DMARDs is finite. Therefore, at some stage during the lengthy course of RA, institution of traditional DMARDs that have previously been applied may have to be reconsidered. In the present study we investigated the effectiveness of re-employed methotrexate in patients with a history of previous methotrexate failure (original course). A total of 1,490 RA patients (80% female, 59% rheumatoid factor positive) were followed from their first presentation, yielding a total of 6,470 patient-years of observation. We identified patients in whom methotrexate was re-employed after at least one intermittent course of a different DMARD. We compared reasons for discontinuation, improvement in acute phase reactants, and cumulative retention rates of methotrexate therapy between the original course of methotrexate and its re-employment. Similar analyses were peformed for other DMARDs. Methotrexate was re-employed in 86 patients. Compared with the original courses, re-employment was associated with a reduced risk for treatment termination because of ineffectiveness (P = 0.02, by McNemar test), especially if the maximum methotrexate dose of the original course had been low (<12.5 mg/week; P = 0.02, by logistic regression). In a Cox regression model, re-employed MTX was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of treatment termination compared with the original course of methotrexate, adjusting for dose and year of employment (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.42–0.97; P = 0.04). These findings were not recapitulated in analyses of re-employment of other DMARDs. Re-employment of MTX despite prior inefficacy, but not re-employment of other DMARDs, is an effective therapeutic option, especially in those patients in whom the methotrexate dose of the original course was low

Remission by composite scores in rheumatoid arthritis: are ankles and feet important?

Current treatment strategies aim to achieve clinical remission in order to prevent the long-term consequences of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Several composite indices are available to assess remission. All of them include joint counts as the assessment of the major 'organ' involved in RA, but some employ reduced joint counts, such as the 28-joint count, which excludes ankles and feet

The YOU CALL-WE CALL randomized clinical trial: Impact of a multimodal support intervention after a mild stroke

Free to read Background Comparison of a multimodal intervention WE CALL (study initiated phone support/information provision) versus a passive intervention YOU CALL (participant can contact a resource person) in individuals with first mild stroke. Methods and Results This study is a single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Primary outcome includes unplanned use of health services (participant diaries) for adverse events and quality of life (Euroquol-5D, Quality of Life Index). Secondary outcomes include planned use of health services (diaries), mood (Beck Depression Inventory II), and participation (Assessment of Life Habits [LIFE-H]). Blind assessments were done at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A mixed model approach for statistical analysis on an intention-to-treat basis was used where the group factor was intervention type and occasion factor time, with a significance level of 0.01. We enrolled 186 patients (WE=92; YOU=94) with a mean age of 62.5±12.5 years, and 42.5% were women. No significant differences were seen between groups at 6 months for any outcomes with both groups improving from baseline on all measures (effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 0.7). The only significant change for both groups from 6 months to 1 year (n=139) was in the social domains of the LIFE-H (increment in score, 0.4/9±1.3 [95% confidence interval, 0.1–0.7]; effect size, 0.3). Qualitatively, the WE CALL intervention was perceived as reassuring, increased insight, and problem solving while decreasing anxiety. Only 6 of 94 (6.4%) YOU CALL participants availed themselves of the intervention. Conclusions Although the 2 groups improved equally over time, WE CALL intervention was perceived as helpful, whereas YOU CALL intervention was not used