Conventional versus ultrasound treat to target: no difference in magnetic resonance imaging inflammation or joint damage over 2 years in early rheumatoid arthritis

Objective. To investigate whether an ultrasound-guided treat-to-target strategy for early RA would lead to reduced MRI inflammation or less structural damage progression compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy. Methods. A total of 230 DMARD-naive early RA patients were randomized to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting DAS <1.6, no swollen joints and no power Doppler signal in any joint or a conventional strategy targeting DAS <1.6 and no swollen joints. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same DMARD escalation strategy. MRI of the dominant hand was performed at six time points over 2 years and scored according to the OMERACT RA MRI scoring system. A total of 218 patients had baseline and one or more follow-up MRIs and were included in the analysis. The mean MRI score change from baseline to each follow-up and the 2 year risk for erosive progression were compared between arms. Results. MRI bone marrow oedema, synovitis and tenosynovitis improved over the first year and was sustained during the second year of follow-up, with no statistically significant differences between the ultrasound and the conventional arms at any time point. The 2 year risk for progression of MRI erosions was similar in both treatment arms: ultrasound arm 39%, conventional arm 33% [relative risk 1.16 (95% CI 0.81, 1.66), P = 0.40]. Conclusion. Incorporating ultrasound information in treatment decisions did not lead to reduced MRI inflammation or less structural damage compared with a conventional treatment strategy. The findings support that systematic use of ultrasound does not provide a benefit in the follow-up of patients with early RA.