Effect of Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Conventional Treat-to-Target Strategies on Disease Activity Remission and Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Authors: Signe Møller-Bisgaard, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Bo Ejbjerg, Merete Lund Hetland, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg, Daniel Glinatsi, Jakob Møller, Mikael Boesen, Robin Christensen, Kristian Stengaard-Pedersen, Ole Rintek Madsen, Bente Jensen, Jan Alexander Villadsen, Ellen-Margrethe Hauge, Philip Bennett, Oliver Hendricks, Karsten Asmussen, Marcin Kowalski, Hanne Lindegaard, Sabrina Mai Nielsen, Henning Bliddal, Niels Steen Krogh, Torkell Ellingsen, Agnete H. Nielsen, Lone Balding, Anne Grethe Jurik, Henrik S. Thomsen, Mikkel Østergaard
Journal: JAMA (2019)

<h3>Importance</h3> 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. <h3>Objective</h3> 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. <h3>Design, Setting, and Participants</h3> 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] &lt;3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. <h3>Interventions</h3> 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. <h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3> Co-primary outcomes were proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP &lt;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. <h3>Results</h3> 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<i>P</i> = .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<i>P</i> = .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. <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> 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. <h3>Trial Registration</h3> ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01656278