Do Poor Prognostic Factors in Rheumatoid Arthritis Affect Treatment Choices and Outcomes? Analysis of a US Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry

Abstract

Objective.To characterize patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by number of poor prognostic factors (PPF: functional limitation, extraarticular disease, seropositivity, erosions) and evaluate treatment acceleration, clinical outcomes, and work status over 12 months by number of PPF.Methods.Using the Corrona RA registry (January 2005–December 2015), biologic-naive patients with diagnosed RA having 12-month (± 3 mos) followup were identified and categorized by PPF (0–1, 2, ≥ 3). Changes in medication, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and work status (baseline–12 mos) were evaluated using linear and logistic regression models.Results.There were 3458 patients who met the selection criteria: 1489 (43.1%), 1214 (35.1%), and 755 (21.8%) had 0–1, 2, or ≥ 3 PPF, respectively. At baseline, patients with ≥ 3 PPF were older, and had longer RA duration and higher CDAI versus those with 0–1 PPF. In 0–1, 2, and ≥ 3 PPF groups, respectively, 20.9%, 23.2%, and 26.5% of patients received ≥ 1 biologic (p = 0.011). Biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD) use was similar in patients with/without PPF (p = 0.57). After adjusting for baseline CDAI, mean (standard error) change in CDAI was −4.95 (0.24), −4.53 (0.27), and −2.52 (0.34) for 0–1, 2, and ≥ 3 PPF groups, respectively. More patients were working at baseline but not at 12-month followup in 2 (13.9%) and ≥ 3 (12.5%) versus 0–1 (7.3%) PPF group.Conclusion.Despite high disease activity and worse clinical outcomes, number of PPF did not significantly predict biologic/tsDMARD use. This may warrant reconsideration of the importance of PPF in treat-to-target approaches.