Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

The ‘therapeutic window’ and treating to target in rheumatoid arthritis

A Gerry Wilson, Laura Hunt and Maya Buch
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.13-4-387
Clin Med August 2013
A Gerry Wilson
1Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
2NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
Roles: rheumatology and academic director of specialised medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Hunt
1Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
2NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
Roles: clinical research fellow and rheumatology specialist registrar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maya Buch
1Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
2NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
Roles: NIHR clinician specialist, senior lecturer and honorary consultant rheumatologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: M.Buch@leeds.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading
Key words 
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • treatment
  • therapeutic window
  • disease modifying agents
  • biological therapy

Key points

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can lead to significant long-term morbidity and mortality

It is important to aim for early diagnosis to limit the structural damage that occurs with prolonged inflammation

Commencing disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy and glucocorticoids as early as possible and titrating therapy as appropriate improves clinical outcomes

Patients must be closely monitored for inflammatory disease with regular clinical assessments and treated to a target of clinical remission

If low disease activity or clinical remission cannot be achieved with standard DMARDs biological therapies can be initiated

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune condition characterised by a chronic inflammatory arthritis. If inadequately treated it results in joint destruction with subsequent deformity, disability and substantial socio-economic costs. RA affects 0.5–1% of the population in the UK and healthcare costs reach an estimated £560 million annually (National Audit Office). Fortunately, the overall prognosis for RA has improved dramatically in recent years owing to innovative research and advances in available therapies.

Historically, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the mainstay of treatment, followed by glucocorticoids and finally disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS) such as gold, sulphasalazine and penicillamine. Although this treatment strategy managed the symptoms of RA, delay in initiation of DMARDS resulted in persistent inflammation with subsequent joint destruction and long-term disability. A different approach was therefore imperative.

This article will focus on the concept of a therapeutic window for managing RA and the treatment strategies now recommended, with an indication of how the treatment paradigm continues to evolve.

Therapeutic window in rheumatoid arthritis

Since the 1990s rheumatologists have been exploring the concept of a ‘window of opportunity’ in the treatment of RA.1 To explain this concept, comparisons can be drawn from other diseases such as cancer, where treating the disease from the onset equates to less disease burden and leads to maximum effect of therapy. In RA this translates to suppressing the inflammation before the irreversible joint damage occurs. Evidence to support this theory in RA is derived from studies which have demonstrated that early intervention results in optimal clinical outcomes.2–4 This has been further validated by radiographic data illustrating that early treatment equates to less erosive disease.3,5

Principles to treating rheumatoid arthritis

The recognition of a ‘window of opportunity’ has led to a paradigm shift in the management of RA. DMARDS, in particular methotrexate, now form the cornerstone of treatment. Therapies are frequently ‘stepped up’ and used in combination to achieve disease control. Pivotal trials have provided insight into drug efficacy and treatment strategies, culminating in key principles for the modern management of RA.

Aim for early diagnosis

We know from longitudinal studies that functional capacity in patients with RA deteriorates with time.6 Long-term disability is primarily caused by joint damage that occurs subsequent to ongoing inflammation and disease activity. In early RA with high disease activity it is possible to detect changes in joint damage within 3 months using plain radiographs.7 Therefore, early diagnosis and immediate intervention with disease-modifying therapy is vital to prevent disability. The heterogeneity in presentation of RA can lead to delays in diagnosis, and previous criteria for RA have demonstrated low sensitivity and specificity for early disease.8 In recognition of this, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) collaborated in 2010 to define a new classification criteria for RA to allow diagnosis at the earliest possible stage (Box 1).9 Referral to a rheumatologist by general practitioners and other physicians is recommended when there is any clinical suspicion (symptoms +/− signs) of an inflammatory arthritis.10 This new criteria combined with prompt referral is paramount in preventing the undesirable sequelae of RA.

Early initiation of therapy

In clinical practice, the concept of a therapeutic window in RA involves the -immediate initiation of therapy upon diagnosis, with minimum delay. There is unequivocal -evidence to support the early commencement of DMARDs. Individuals assessed and treated with disease duration of <12 weeks have been shown to have better clinical outcomes and less radiographic progression than those presenting with longer disease duration.2 A meta-analysis of 14 randomised control trials confirmed early initiation of therapy in individuals with symptoms of less than a year corresponded to better response to DMARDs.11 In fact, shorter disease duration was the strongest variable associated with improved clinical response. There is a wealth of clinical trial data supporting this approach.12–16

Treat to a target

Treating to a predefined target is undertaken in several pathologies to enable physicians and patients to discuss and adopt therapeutic changes within distinct time frames. Improved clinical outcomes in hypertension and diabetes have been witnessed subsequent to close monitoring and predefined targets in blood pressure and HbA1c levels, respectively. In RA the development of reliable composite measures to assess disease activity, such as the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28),17 has allowed the principles of treating to a target to be applied to RA management. Clinical remission – the absence of inflammatory disease – is accepted as the target of treatment of RA. In those individuals where this is not possible, a state of low disease activity is accepted. Attainment of this goal has been demonstrated to halt joint damage and hence improve long-term clinical outcomes.14,18

Monitoring disease and optimising therapy

In order to achieve a treatment target of remission or low disease activity, a structured patient management approach is required. This is supported by trials that compared routine outpatient review vs intensive follow up (defined as frequent visits with prompt titration of drug therapy). Those receiving intensive follow up had significant improvement in clinical outcome, physical function and structural damage.15,16,19,20 Patients treated early and aggressively with DMARDs also had reduced work disability, sick leave and premature retirement rates. The aim is to achieve the predefined target, ideally within 3 months, but at least within 6 months of diagnosis. The interval between assessments should be at least 3 months, but monthly visits may be necessary until a period of sustained low disease activity or remission is achieved. It appears that irrespective of treatment therapy, treating to a target, regular follow up and monitoring of disease activity with responsive drug escalation all lead to sustained clinical and functional benefit.21 The principles described above form the foundations of guidelines recently published for the management of RA.22 ‘Treat to target’ is an international initiative developed from a systematic review of all strategy trials in RA and expert opinion (Box 2). It advocates early diagnosis, immediate implementation of disease modifying therapy, monitoring of disease activity and the optimisation of therapy accordingly.

Treatment strategies

Recommendations for pharmacological therapies in RA have been developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and EULAR.23,24 The clinical efficacy data and safety profile of methotrexate endorse it as the anchor drug of choice. Alternative DMARDs are available for those individuals intolerant of methotrexate. DMARDs can also be added in combination as appropriate. Glu-cocorticoids are recommended as an adjuvant therapy at disease onset due to their disease-modifying and anti-inflammatory properties.19 Clinical trials have consistently demonstrated that tight disease control with appropriate escalation of therapy is fundamental in achieving low disease activity.16,20 Therefore, when synthetic DMARDs fail, escalation to one of the biological therapies is advised (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Biological therapies approved by NICE for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Biological therapies have revolutionised disease outcomes in RA. In active, longstanding disease with an inadequate response to methotrexate the addition of a biological agent has significantly improved clinical and structural outcomes.25 Evaluation of biologicals when initiated early suggests more optimal suppression of inflammation may be achieved, reinforcing the concept of a ‘window of opportunity’. When tumour necrosis factor inhibitors were initiated as first line treatment in early RA, higher rates of low disease activity and remission were achieved.20,26 In the UK, NICE stipulates that treatment with methotrexate and one other DMARD is necessary prior to escalation. With this is mind it is imperative that treatment is regularly reviewed and titrated in order to allow appropriate escalation when standard therapy is not sufficient.

The future of rheumatoid arthritis

Research and clinical experience have provided rheumatologists with effective -therapies and strategies for managing RA. However, the optimum treatment pathway has not yet been established. While a good proportion of patients may achieve clinical remission with synthetic DMARDS alone (particularly with a treatment to target approach), it remains unclear whether an initial period of -aggressive therapy with biological agents would equate to improved clinical outcomes. The possibility of drug-free remission and additional advantages of therapy such as cardiovascular benefits remain areas for further evaluation that will help refine treatment approaches in the future.

It is also important to monitor for structural damage in addition to disease activity. Patients in clinical remission have been observed to continue to show structural progression, attributed to persistent subclinical synovitis.27,28 This has partly driven evaluation of more accurate methods of defining and monitoring disease. Ultrasound has emerged as a useful and practical tool in detecting subclinical inflammation that is not identified -clinically. Similarly, advances in the understanding and methods of analysis of immune dysregulation provide additional disease markers. Targets for remission in subsequent years could include achieving imaging and immunological remission.

The potential for curing RA is a realistic goal in light of the novel drug therapies in development. As our understanding of the pathogenesis of RA expands, the prospect for prevention is also on the horizon. The last 20 years have seen dramatic changes in the way we approach RA; however, the future may hold even greater promise.

Box 1.

Target population: patients who have at least one joint with definite clinical synovitis (swelling), not better explained by another disease, should be tested.9


Embedded Image
Box 2.

Ten recommendations on treating rheumatoid arthritis to target based on both evidence and expert opinion.22


Embedded Image
  • © 2013 Royal College of Physicians

References

  1. ↵
    1. Quinn MA,
    2. Emery P
    . Window of opportunity in early rheumatoid arthritis: possibility of altering the disease process with early intervention. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2003;21:S154–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Nell VP,
    2. Machold KP,
    3. Eberl G,
    4. et al.
    Benefit of very early referral and very early therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:906–14.doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh199
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. van der Linden MP,
    2. le Cessie S,
    3. Raza K,
    4. et al.
    Long-term impact of delay in assessment of patients with early arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:3537–46.doi:10.1002/art.27692
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Lard LR,
    2. Visser H,
    3. Speyer I,
    4. et al.
    Early versus delayed treatment in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of two cohorts who received different treatment strategies. Am J Med 2001;111:446–51.doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00872-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Finckh A,
    2. Liang MH,
    3. van Herckenrode CM,
    4. de Pablo P
    . Long-term impact of early treatment on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:864–72.doi:10.1002/art.22353
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Yelin E,
    2. Trupin L,
    3. Wong B,
    4. Rush S
    . The impact of functional status and change in functional status on mortality over 18 years among persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2002;29:1851–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Bruynesteyn K,
    2. Landewé R,
    3. van der Linden S,
    4. van der Heijde D
    . Radiography as primary outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: acceptable sample sizes for trials with 3 months’ follow up. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1413–8.doi:10.1136/ard.2003.014043
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Banal F,
    2. Dougados M,
    3. Combescure C,
    4. Gossec L
    . Sensitivity and specificity of the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis according to disease duration: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1184–91.doi:10.1136/ard.2008.093187
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Aletaha D,
    2. Neogi T,
    3. Silman AJ,
    4. et al.
    2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:2569–81.doi:10.1002/art.27584
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Emery P,
    2. Breedveld FC,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. et al.
    Early referral recommendation for newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: evidence based development of a clinical guide. Ann Rheum Dis 2002;61:290–7.doi:10.1136/ard.61.4.290
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Anderson JJ,
    2. Wells G,
    3. Verhoeven AC,
    4. Felson DT
    . Factors predicting response to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: the importance of disease duration. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:22–9.doi:10.1002/1529-0131(200001)43:13.0.CO;2-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. O’Dell JR,
    2. Haire CE,
    3. Erikson N,
    4. et al.
    Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of all three medications. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1287–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Verhoeven AC,
    3. Markusse HM,
    4. et al.
    Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 1997;350:309–18.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01300-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Rantalaiho V,
    2. Korpela M,
    3. Laasonen L,
    4. et al.
    Early combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and tight disease control improve long-term radiologic outcome in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the 11-year results of the Finnish Rheumatoid Arthritis Combination Therapy trial. Arthritis Res Ther 2010;12:R122.doi:10.1186/ar3060
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Grigor C,
    2. Capell H,
    3. Stirling A,
    4. et al.
    Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:263–9.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16676-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Verstappen SM,
    2. Jacobs JW,
    3. van der Veen MJ,
    4. et al.
    Intensive treatment with -methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: aiming for remission. Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAMERA, an open-label strategy trial). Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1443–9.doi:10.1136/ard.2007.071092
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Aletaha D,
    2. Smolen JS
    . The definition and measurement of disease modification in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2006;32:9–44.doi:10.1016/j.rdc.2005.09.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Han C,
    3. van der Heijde DM,
    4. et al.
    Radiographic changes in rheumatoid arthritis patients attaining different disease activity states with methotrexate monotherapy and infliximab plus methotrexate: the impacts of remission and tumour necrosis factor blockade. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:823–7.doi:10.1136/ard.2008.090019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Bakker MF,
    2. Jacobs JW,
    3. Welsing PM,
    4. et al.
    Low-dose prednisone inclusion in a methotrexate-based, tight control strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:329–39.doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Goekoop-Ruiterman YP,
    2. de Vries-Bouwstra JK,
    3. Allaart CF,
    4. et al.
    Comparison of treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:406–15.doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-6-200703200-00005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Klarenbeek NB,
    2. Güler-Yüksel M,
    3. van der Kooji SM,
    4. et al.
    The impact of four dynamic, goal-steered treatment strategies on the 5-year outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the BeSt study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1039–46.doi:10.1136/ard.2010.141234
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Aletaha D,
    3. Bijlsma JW,
    4. et al.
    Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:631–7.doi:10.1136/ard.2009.123919
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Landewé R,
    3. Breedveld FC,
    4. et al.
    EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:964–75.doi:10.1136/ard.2009.126532
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    . Rheumatoid arthritis: The management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. London: NICE, 2009. www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG79NICEGuideline.pdf [Accessed 30 May 2013].
  25. ↵
    1. van der Heijde D,
    2. Klareskog L,
    3. Rodriguez-Valverde V,
    4. et al.
    Comparison of etanercept and methotrexate, alone and combined, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: two-year clinical and radiographic results from the TEMPO study, a double-blind, randomized trial. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:1063–74.doi:10.1002/art.21655
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Emery P,
    2. Breedveld FC,
    3. Hall S,
    4. et al.
    Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial. Lancet 2008;372:375–82.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61000-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Molenaar ET,
    2. Voskuyl AE,
    3. Dinant HJ,
    4. et al.
    Progression of radiologic damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:36–42.doi:10.1002/art.11481
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Brown AK,
    2. Quinn MA,
    3. Karim Z,
    4. et al.
    Presence of significant synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-induced clinical remission: evidence from an imaging study may explain structural progression. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:3761–73.doi:10.1002/art.22190
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
The ‘therapeutic window’ and treating to target in rheumatoid arthritis
Laura Hunt, Maya Buch
Clinical Medicine Aug 2013, 13 (4) 387-390; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-4-387

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The ‘therapeutic window’ and treating to target in rheumatoid arthritis
Laura Hunt, Maya Buch
Clinical Medicine Aug 2013, 13 (4) 387-390; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-4-387
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Therapeutic window in rheumatoid arthritis
    • Principles to treating rheumatoid arthritis
    • Treatment strategies
    • The future of rheumatoid arthritis
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Behcet's disease
  • CME Rheumatology (108459): self-assessment questionnaire
  • Systemic lupus erythematosus
Show more CME Rheumatology

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians