Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleArticle

Effects of Double Filtration Plasmapheresis, Leflunomide, and Methotrexate on Inflammatory Changes Found Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

XIAOXIA YU, LIXIN WANG, PING XU, WEIWEI LU, GUOBIN LAN, LIFENG PING, XIAOLEI WANG, JUNGE TIAN and JUNLAN LIU
The Journal of Rheumatology June 2012, 39 (6) 1171-1178; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110978
XIAOXIA YU
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: glxiaoxia@126.com
LIXIN WANG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PING XU
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
WEIWEI LU
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GUOBIN LAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LIFENG PING
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
XIAOLEI WANG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JUNGE TIAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JUNLAN LIU
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the effects of double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) in combination with leflunomide and methotrexate (MTX) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected inflammatory changes (synovitis and bone edema) in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with high disease activity.

Methods. Sixty RA patients with highly active disease of 6 months’ to 3 years’ duration were randomized to receive DFPP in combination with leflunomide and MTX (DFPP group), and leflunomide plus MTX (no-DFPP group). The primary endpoint was the improvement in MRI-detected synovitis from baseline over 6 months. Secondary endpoint variables included DAS28 remission and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria responses for 6 consecutive months.

Results. The study achieved significant improvement in synovitis and bone edema, with significantly lower synovitis and bone edema scores in the DFPP group compared with the no-DFPP group (p < 0.001). Synovitis scores in 48.39% of patients (15/31) in the DFPP group were 0 at Month 6. Bone edema scores in 32.26% of patients (10/31) in the DFPP group were 0 at Month 6. We observed significantly greater ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 responses and DAS28 remission rates in the DFPP group than in the no-DFPP group (p < 0.001). Sustained DAS28 remission and ACR90 response for at least 6 months were achieved in 100% of patients receiving DFPP therapy.

Conclusion. The combination of DFPP and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) was superior to DMARD alone for reducing MRI-detected signs of synovitis and bone edema in patients with early highly active RA. DFPP therapy enabled rapid and more complete suppression of inflammation in patients with highly active RA. Nearly half the patients (48.39%) who had received DFPP therapy achieved both clinical remission and imaging remission, a state characterized as true remission.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
  • DOUBLE FILTRATION PLASMAPHERESIS
  • MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
  • SYNOVITIS

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease with a poor prognosis in which synovitis induces progressive destruction of bones and joints, which leads to marked impairment of the activities of daily living. More timely and effective therapy for RA has contributed to increasing rates of clinical remission. However, progression of structural damage may still occur in patients who have satisfied remission criteria1,2,3. Most patients with RA who satisfied the remission criteria with normal findings on clinical and laboratory studies had synovitis detected on imaging, which may explain the observed discrepancy between disease activity and outcome in RA4,5. The remission state should represent an absence of inflammation, synonymous with no clinical symptoms or signs, and should result in optimal structural, functional, and quality of life outcomes.

We previously studied a cohort of patients with active RA who were treated with double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) plus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), and who had sustained American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses of 100%, 92.9%, and 81.0%, respectively, and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) improvement for 22 months6. These results suggested a consistently good outcome.

In a cohort of patients with highly active RA we performed an evaluation by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of treatment with DFPP in combination with DMARD. Our aim was to investigate the response to DFPP therapy of imaging-detected synovitis in highly active RA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and study protocol

Patients who were enrolled in the study were inpatients between March 20, 2008, and May 10, 2010. Patients eligible for our study were at least 18 years old but not older than 65 years and met the 1987 revised criteria of the ACR (formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) for the classification of RA7, with a disease duration of 6 months to 3 years. Patients had to have active disease with ≥ 8 swollen joints, ≥ 10 tender joints, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) ≥ 28 mm/h or C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration ≥ 20 mg/l. Patients had to achieve a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 5.1. Patients who were receiving treatment with corticosteroid hormones or biological agents were excluded.

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Sixty patients were randomly assigned by computer, 31 to the DFPP group and 29 to the no-DFPP group. All patients received leflunomide 10 mg, 2 times daily, plus methotrexate (MTX) 15 mg orally once weekly. DFPP was performed in the DFPP group once every 1–2 weeks for 3 sessions. Patients in the no-DFPP group did not receive sham DFPP. For longterm treatment, patients continued to take the same doses of medications.

Our study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Traditional Chinese Medicine-Western Medicine Hospital of Cangzhou, Hebei. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Double filtration plasmapheresis

DFPP was conducted by application of a double-filtration technique with a membrane plasmapheresis apparatus (Plasauto iQ, Asahi Medical Co., Tokyo, Japan). EC-30W and OP-08W were used as a plasma fractionator and separator. The volume of filtered plasma was 4% of the patient’s weight (kg). About 10% of the filtered plasma was discarded, with concomitant isovolumetric hydroxyethyl-starch supplementation. Fraxiparine was used as anticoagulant. Vascular access was with a double-lumen catheter in a central vein, or with arterial and venous punctures. Blood extraction rate was 100 ml/min.

Study endpoints

The primary endpoint was the improvement in MRI-detected synovitis from baseline over 6 months. Secondary endpoint variables included clinical remission in DAS28 and ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 responses for 6 consecutive months.

Study assessments

Joint examinations were performed by an independent assessor who had no knowledge of the patient’s treatment assignment. Other assessments included patient’s self-evaluation of pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; range 0–10 cm), patient’s and evaluator’s global disease assessment, and patient’s self-evaluation of functional status using the Disability Index of the HAQ (HAQ-DI). We used 28 joints for joint assessments. Blood samples were obtained for measuring ESR, serum CRP, rheumatoid factor (RF), and anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) levels, including anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody, antiperinuclear factor, and antikeratin antibody, as well as for determining the presence of antinuclear antibodies and anti-dsDNA antibodies. MRI of the right wrist was obtained at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months. Evaluations were done once a month in followup for 12 months.

MRI assessment

MR imaging of the right wrist was performed with a 1.5-T whole-body system (Magnetom Avanto, Siemens, Germany) using a small circular flexible coil. Patients were positioned in the “superman” position (prone with the arm extended above the head). A hand coil was used to minimize movement and standardize position. The imaging protocol consisted of T1-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced (15 ml gadopentetate dimeglumine) T1-weighted spin-echo axial and coronal images (SE-T1WI), fat-suppressed T2-weighted and fat-suppressed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted spin-echo axial and coronal images (TSE-T2WI+FS and SE-T1WI), and a fat-suppressed proton density weighted coronal sequence (PD+FS). The slice thickness of all MR images was 3 mm, and the slice distance was 0.6 mm in the axial plane and 0.3 mm in the coronal plane.

The scoring of synovitis and bone edema of the right wrist joint was done according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials group RA-MRI Scoring system8 by a single experienced reader who was blinded to all other clinical findings. Synovitis was scored on a 0–3 scale at 3 different locations: radioulnar joint, radiocarpal joint, and intercarpal-carpometacarpal joints (total maximum score = 9). A score of 0 is normal, with no enhancement or enhancement up to the thickness of normal synovium, while scores from 1 to 3 (mild, moderate, severe, respectively) refer to increments of one-third of the presumed maximum volume of enhancing tissue in the synovial compartment. The carpal bones, distal radius, distal ulna, and metacarpal base (15 locations) were scored separately for bone edema (scored 0–3 based on the volume of edema, where 1: 1%–33%; 2: 34%–66%; and 3: 67%–100%). The maximum score for bone edema was 45. The metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints were not evaluated, as they were not completely covered in the image sets.

Clinical remission by DAS28 score

Clinical remission was assessed by DAS28, a validated composite index with measures of tender joint count and swollen joint count; the patient’s general health, measured on 100 mm VAS; and serum levels of acute-phase reactants (ESR and CRP). Clinical remission was defined as DAS28 < 2.69. Scoring of DAS28 was done with use of the DAS Calculator10.

ACR response

The ACR20 was defined in a manner analogous to the ACR definition of improvement11,12,13. Patients were considered to have achieved an ACR20 response if the following 3 criteria were met: (1) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in tender joint count; (2) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in swollen joint count; and (3) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 measures: patient assessment of pain on VAS (range 0–10 cm), patient global assessment of disease activity, physician global assessment of disease activity, patient assessment of physical function (HAQ), and acute-phase reactant values (CRP, ESR). ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 responses according to ACR criteria were assessed in a similar manner.

Physical function assessment

Arthritis-related functional disability and health-related quality of life were measured using the HAQ, a validated self-administered form that assesses functional ability and quality of life in a variety of areas; most rheumatologists in China use a HAQ of 9 questions, including abilities to dress, arise, eat, walk, maintain personal hygiene, reach, grip, shop, and perform sexual behavior14, on a scale ranging from 0 (no difficulty) to 3 (unable to perform the activity).

Adverse events

Patients were monitored for occurrence of adverse events throughout and after the DFPP sessions.

Statistical analysis

Analysis was done in the per-protocol sample. This analysis set was characterized as patients having no missing values for the primary efficacy variables and minor protocol deviations only. T test or Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables and chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test for binary variables. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 14.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for all analyses. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

Sixty patients were randomized to receive study therapy. Characteristics of the study patients with RA were similar between the 2 groups, with mean disease duration of 15.65 ± SD 11.10 months for the DFPP group and 15.35 ± 10.87 months for the no-DFPP group. The measures of joint counts, ESR, CRP, HAQ, and DAS28 indicated that study patients had a high level of disease activity. All patients were taking 1–2 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and 16.67% (10/60) of patients were taking 1–2 DMARD at baseline. Seventy-five percent (45/60) of patients had previously received corticosteroid hormones 1 to 6 months prior to baseline as permitted in the protocol design. Similar percentages of patients in each group were receiving treatment with DMARD (Table 1).

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

Baseline patient characteristics.

Efficacy

MRI findings

Our study achieved a significant reduction in synovitis compared with baseline (Figure 1), with a reduction of 7 in the median synovitis score from baseline to Month 6 in the DFPP group, and 0 in the median synovitis score from baseline to Month 6 for the no-DFPP group (p < 0.001). Bone edema was significantly improved (Figure 1), with a reduction of 6 in the median bone edema score from baseline to Month 6 in the DFPP group compared with an increase of 1 in the median bone edema score from baseline to Month 6 for the no-DFPP group (p < 0.001; Table 2, Figure 2). Synovitis scores in 48.39% (15/31) of patients in the DFPP group were 0 at Month 6 (Figure 1). Bone edema scores in 32.26% (10/31) of patients in the DFPP group were 0 at Month 6. Both synovitis scores and bone edema scores in 25.81% (8/31) of patients in the DFPP group were 0 at Month 6.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

A. Baseline axial T1-weighted images pre- and post-intravenous contrast, showing grade 3 synovitis in the distal radioulnar joint. B. Corresponding 6-month images, showing grade 0 synovitis. C. Baseline coronal fat-suppressed proton density-weighted MR images, showing severe bone edema in the carpal bones. D. Corresponding images at 6 months, showing significant improvement of bone edema changes in the carpal bones.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Progression over time of MRI-derived scores for synovitis (A) and edema (B) in patients treated with double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) in combination with leflunomide (LEF) and methotrexate (MTX), or LEF plus MTX. ** Significantly lower synovitis score or edema score in patients treated with DFPP in combination with LEF and MTX than patients treated with LEF and MTX only; p < 0.001.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Differences in MRI synovitis and bone edema scores between DFPP group and no-DFPP group.

ACR response

ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 responses for 6 consecutive months were achieved in 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, of patients in the DFPP group, compared with 37.93%, 20.69%, 10.34%, and 0% of patients in the no-DFPP group (p < 0.001). Similar statistically significant patterns were observed for ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 responses at Month 1, Month 3, and Month 6. Following 1 month of treatment, ACR70 and ACR90 responses had been achieved in 100% and 41.94% of patients in the DFPP group. At Month 3 and Month 6, ACR70 and ACR90 responses had been achieved in 100% and 100% of patients in the DFPP group (Table 3). Patients achieving ACR70 and ACR90 responses had no swollen joints and tender joints at Month 3 and Month 6 in the DFPP group. Patients achieving ACR70 and ACR90 responses for 6 consecutive months had no swollen and tender joints, and no increase in CRP and ESR in the DFPP group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 response and DAS28 remission rates (%) at different timepoints in 2 study groups.

Clinical remission in DAS28 scores

Clinical remission (defined as DAS28 < 2.69) for 6 consecutive months was achieved in 100% of patients in the DFPP group, compared with 6.90% of patients in the no-DFPP group (p < 0.001). Similar statistically significant patterns were observed for clinical remission at Month 1, Month 3, and Month 6. Clinical remissions were achieved in 54.84%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, of patients in the DFPP group at Month 1, Month 3 and Month 6 (Table 3). Patients in clinical remission had no swollen joints and tender joints at Month 3 and Month 6 in the DFPP group. Patients in clinical remission for 6 consecutive months had no swollen joints and tender joints, and no increase in CRP and ESR in the DFPP group.

Improvement in physical function (HAQ)

Patients in the DFPP group had significantly greater improvement in HAQ score at Month 1, Month 3, and Month 6 (0, 0, and 0, respectively), compared with patients in the no-DFPP group (2.07 ± 0.53, 2.04 ± 0.57, and 1.79 ± 0.87, respectively) at Month 1, Month 3, and Month 6 (p < 0.001).

Characteristics of autoantibodies

Levels of RF were significantly lower in patients who received DFPP therapy at Month 1 and Month 6 (132.48 ± 231.16 and 116.14 ± 240.75 IU/ml, respectively) compared with baseline (1235.16 ± 2767.29 IU/ml; p < 0.001), and compared with those patients who received DMARD therapy at Month 1 and Month 6 (1245.29 ± 1697.19 and 1237.59 ± 1682.96 IU/ml; p < 0.001). The rates of ACPA-positivity were significantly lower in the patients who received DFPP therapy at Month 1 and Month 6 (29% and 26%, respectively) compared with baseline (87%; p < 0.001), and compared with those patients who received DMARD therapy at Month 1 and Month 6 (86% and 86%; p < 0.001).

Adverse events

Three of 31 patients felt mild weakness after DFPP, which resolved within 20 hours. There was no evidence of bleeding, allergic reaction, dizziness, hypotension, or arrhythmias with DFPP.

DISCUSSION

This randomized, controlled exploratory study evaluated a remission-induction approach using double filtration plasmapheresis in combination with leflunomide plus MTX compared with only leflunomide plus MTX in patients with early highly active RA. Our study used MRI to assess inflammatory outcomes, with clinical observations of DAS28 remission, ACR responses, and HAQ scores. Our findings demonstrate that combination therapy with DFPP plus DMARD was superior to DMARD therapy alone in the treatment of patients with early highly active RA. The superiority with respect to improvement in the synovitis and bone marrow edema detected on MRI, DAS28 remission, ACR responses, and improvement in HAQ scores was seen after 6 months of therapy. These indicated that the DFPP therapy enabled more rapid and more complete suppression of inflammation in patients with early highly active RA.

We found that 96% of patients with RA who satisfied the remission criteria had ongoing active synovitis observable on MRI. The term “true remission” should be reserved for patients who are not only in a state of clinical remission, but also show an absence of synovitis on imaging studies4. In our study, patients who received DFPP in combination with DMARD showed significantly greater improvement in the MRI synovitis score compared with patients who received DMARD alone. We found that 48.39% of the patients receiving DFPP therapy had complete resolution in MRI-detected synovitis, and imaging remission was achieved.

DAS28 remission and ACR70 and ACR90 response was achieved in 54.84%, 100%, and 41.94%, respectively, of patients at 1 month, and in 100% at 3 months of patients who received DFPP therapy. Sustained DAS28 remission and ACR90 response for at least 6 months were also reached in 100% of patients who received DFPP therapy. The rapid disease control was paralleled by a rapid, sustained, and significant improvement in function and quality of life (by HAQ).

A rapid and complete suppression of inflammatory joint disease (joint counts and MRI synovitis), with normalization of the systemic acute-phase response (CRP and ESR), indicates that nearly half of the patients (48.39%) who had received DFPP therapy achieved both clinical remission and imaging remission, i.e., a true remission.

Our study has shown significantly greater ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 responses, clinical remission rates, and sustained clinical remission in the DFPP group than in the no-DFPP group (p < 0.001), than in other studies15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22. Patients in DAS28 remission may have relatively large numbers of residual joint counts, especially swollen joints20,21,22. Patients achieving an ACR70 response were at a higher level of disease activity, as assessed by 3 objective measures of disease activity — swollen and tender joint counts and ESR — than patients achieving a DAS28 remission20. Looking at patients in sustained remission, residual swollen joints were seen in 13% of patients in DAS28 remission21. In our study, patients with DAS28 remission and ACR70 responses had no swollen joints and tender joints. Patients in DAS28 remission and achieving an ACR70 response for 6 consecutive months had no swollen joints and tender joints and no increase in CRP and ESR in the DFPP group. These findings indicate the complete absence of any measurable disease activity markers on clinical and laboratory assessments. Notable in this study was the complete absence of MRI-detected inflammatory changes achieved in 25.81% of the patients with DFPP therapy; bone marrow edema showed complete resolution in 10 (32.26%) of the 31 patients in the DFPP group, and in 8 of these 10 patients, synovitis also resolved.

Current methods used to evaluate remission in RA largely rely on composite scores based on clinical and laboratory assessments, and include the ACR preliminary criteria for clinical remission in RA23 and the DAS9,24,25,26. Such measures have the disadvantage of not measuring inflammation directly at the primary site of pathology27,28. Our study demonstrates that current methods of assessing remission do not necessarily correlate with an absence of disease, and so they may be inaccurate measures of true RA remission. MRI studies are considered to play an important role in directly and accurately evaluating the pathology, i.e., the inflammatory changes (synovitis and bone marrow edema) and destructive changes (bone erosion), of RA, and MRI is therefore thought to be a superior imaging method, as well as being useful in objectively verifying the efficacy of drug therapy and to predict the prognosis.

In recent years, reports on clinical studies using MRI for assessment of RA have been published29,30,31,32. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to evaluate the response of RA to DFPP therapy by MRI. MRI scoring of bilateral wrists and MCP joints does not have much additional value compared with scoring of unilateral wrist33. Most MRI studies of patients with RA have focused on 1 joint region — the wrist or the second through fifth MCP joints30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38.

RA is a systemic inflammatory disease and a disease of an aberrant immune response in a genetically predisposed host that leads to chronic progressive synovial inflammation and destruction of the joint architecture. It is characterized by the production of autoantibodies, cytokines, acute-phase reactant proteins, and immunoglobulin39. The availability of biologic agents has provided additional improvements in efficacy in patients with RA15,16,17,19. However, RA is an autoimmune disease that involves multiple molecules and pathways. Autoantibodies and cytokines represent classes of immune cell-secreted proteins postulated to have a variety of roles in RA, from regulating the initiation and perpetuation of chronic inflammatory responses to joint destruction40,41,42. A biologic agent could target only a single inflammatory mediator and limited pathogenic pathways, it could not suppress all the inflammatory pathways and may show unsatisfactory results43,44. The major mode of action of DFPP is rapid depletion of specific disease-associated plasma factors45. Yeh, et al46,47 showed that DFPP was able to remove immunoglobulin. DFPP can also reduce cytokines, as evidenced by lower levels of transcripts for interleukin 8, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interleukin 2 at the end of each individual course of DFPP48. In agreement with this, the levels of RF and CRP were significantly decreased after DFPP, with significant improvement of the signs and symptoms of active RA and in physical function (HAQ) that were maintained during 6–12 months’ followup in our previous studies6,49,50. These were confirmed in studies by Liu, et al51 and Matsuda, et al52; our results agree well with these findings. The rapid disease control that was accompanied by rapid, sustained, and significant improvement in function and quality of life indicates that a rapid and complete suppression of autoimmune inflammation was achieved, with lowering of disease-associated plasma factors, after DFPP treatment. The safety of DFPP treatment has been confirmed by our findings and other studies6,47.

We acknowledge the limitations of our study and the preliminary nature of our results. This was an open non-blinded study and the control subjects did not receive sham DFPP. We could therefore not evaluate potential placebo effects.

The study used MRI to assess short-term inflammatory outcomes in a randomized design for 6 months, with further clinical observations for DAS28 remission and ACR responses for 6 consecutive months in patients with early RA with high baseline disease activity. Our study demonstrates the magnitude of response that can be achieved in patients with highly active RA in their early stages with DFPP plus DMARD therapy, and establishes the superiority of DFPP combination therapy to DMARD therapy. The results showed significant responses in MRI-detected synovitis and bone marrow edema. The results also show that a significant proportion of patients with early highly active RA can achieve ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and ACR90 responses and DAS28 remission. Further, a significant proportion of patients with early highly active RA receiving DFPP therapy had achieved both clinical remission and imaging remission, i.e., a true remission. This confirms the effectiveness of DFPP therapy not only in adequate disease suppression over time, but also in rapid disease suppression for optimal improvement in the outcomes of physical function and quality of life. By the end of the sixth month, there was a marked improvement in MRI-detected synovitis and bone edema in the patients who received DFPP therapy. We give the results of the 6 months of followup with MRI. Longterm MRI followup studies are under way. After the encouraging results of this trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial study and long period of followup seem to be important.

Footnotes

  • Supported by a research project grant in science and technology from the Science and Technology Department of Hebei Province (No. 09276102D-25).

  • Accepted for publication February 14, 2012.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mulherin D,
    2. Fitzgerald O,
    3. Bresnihan B
    . Clinical improvement and radiological deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis: Evidence that the pathogenesis of synovial inflammation and articular erosion may differ. Br J Rheumatol 1996;35:1263–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kirwan JR
    . Links between radiological change, disability, and pathology in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001;28:881–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Molenaar ET,
    2. Voskuyl AE,
    3. Dinant HJ,
    4. Bezemer PD,
    5. Boers M,
    6. Dijkmans BA
    . Progression of radiologic damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:36–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Brown AK,
    2. Quinn MA,
    3. Karim Z,
    4. Conaghan PG,
    5. Peterfy CG,
    6. Hensor E,
    7. 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Brown AK,
    2. Conaghan PG,
    3. Karim Z,
    4. Quinn MA,
    5. Ikeda K,
    6. Peterfy CG,
    7. et al.
    An explanation for the apparent dissociation between clinical remission and continued structural deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:2958–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Yu XX,
    2. Ma JR,
    3. Tian JG,
    4. Jiang SH,
    5. Xu P,
    6. Han HP,
    7. et al.
    A controlled study of double filtration plasmapheresis in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Rheumatol 2007;13:193–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Arnett FC,
    2. Edworthy SM,
    3. Bloch DA,
    4. McShane DJ,
    5. Fries JF,
    6. Cooper NS,
    7. et al.
    The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ostergaard M,
    2. Peterfy C,
    3. Conaghan P,
    4. McQueen F,
    5. Bird P,
    6. Ejbjerg B,
    7. et al.
    OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1385–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Van Gestel AM,
    2. Haagsma CJ,
    3. van Riel PL
    . Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:1845–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hulst LV,
    2. Creemers M,
    3. Fransen J,
    4. Li L,
    5. Grol R,
    6. Hulscher M,
    7. et al.
    How to improve DAS28 use in daily clinical practice? A pilot study of a nurse-led intervention. Rheumatology 2010;49:741–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Felson DT,
    2. Anderson JJ,
    3. Boers M,
    4. Bombardier C,
    5. Furst D,
    6. Goldsmith C,
    7. et al.
    American College of Rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:727–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Felson DT,
    2. Anderson JJ,
    3. Lange ML,
    4. Wells G,
    5. LaValley MP
    . Should improvement in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be defined as fifty percent or seventy percent improvement in core set measures, rather than twenty percent? Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:1564–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Pincus T,
    2. Sokka T,
    3. Kavanaugh A
    . Relative versus absolute goals of therapies for RA: ACR 20 or ACR 50 responses versus target values for near remission of DAS or single measures. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2004;22 Suppl 35:S50–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Jiang M,
    2. Yu D,
    3. Lin XY,
    4. Zhu LP
    . Zhong hua rheumatology. Beijing: Huaxia Publisher; 2004:770–827.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Goekoop-Ruiterman YP,
    2. de Vries-Bouwstra JK,
    3. Allaart CF,
    4. van Zeben D,
    5. Kerstens PJ,
    6. Hazes JM,
    7. et al.
    Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt Study): a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3381–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Breedveld FC,
    2. Weisman MH,
    3. Kavanaugh AF,
    4. Cohen SB,
    5. Pavelka K,
    6. Vollenhoven R,
    7. et al.
    The PREMIER Study: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:26–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Emery P,
    2. Breedveld FC,
    3. Hall S,
    4. Durez P,
    5. Chang DJ,
    6. Robertson D,
    7. 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Verstappen SM,
    2. Jacobs JW,
    3. van der Veen MJ,
    4. Heurkens AH,
    5. Schenk Y,
    6. ter Borg EJ,
    7. 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.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. St. Clair EW,
    2. van der Heijde DM,
    3. Smolen JS,
    4. Maini RN,
    5. Bathon JM,
    6. Emery P,
    7. et al.
    Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:3432–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Van der Heijde D,
    2. Klareskog L,
    3. Boers M,
    4. Landewe R,
    5. Codreanu C,
    6. Bolosiu HD,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of different definitions to classify remission and sustained remission: 1 year TEMPO results. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1582–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Mierau M,
    2. Schoels M,
    3. Gonda G,
    4. Fuchs J,
    5. Aletaha D,
    6. Smolen JS
    . Assessing remission in clinical practice. Rheumatology 2007;46:975–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Aletaha D,
    2. Ward MM,
    3. Machold KP,
    4. Nell VP,
    5. Stamm T,
    6. Smolen JS
    . Remission and active disease in rheumatoid arthritis: defining criteria for disease activity states. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2625–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Pinals RS,
    2. Masi AT,
    3. Larsen RA; and
    4. the Subcommittee for Criteria of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis of the American Rheumatism Association Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee
    . Preliminary criteria for clinical remission in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1981;24:1308–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Van der Heijde DM,
    2. van ’t Hof MA,
    3. van Riel PL,
    4. Theunisse LM,
    5. Lubberts EW,
    6. van Leeuwen MA,
    7. et al.
    Judging disease activity in clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis: First step in the development of a disease activity score. Ann Rheum Dis 1990;49:916–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Van Gestel AM,
    2. Prevoo ML,
    3. van ’t Hof MA,
    4. van Rijswijk MH,
    5. van de Putte LB,
    6. van Riel PL
    . Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:34–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Prevoo ML,
    2. van ’t Hof MA,
    3. Kuper HH,
    4. van Leeuwen MA,
    5. van de Putte LB,
    6. van Riel PL
    . Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:44–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Lee SK,
    3. Suh JS,
    4. Yoon M,
    5. Song JH,
    6. Lee CH
    . Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in defining remission of rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1997;24:1303–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Paulus HE
    . Defining remission in rheumatoid arthritis: What is it? Does it matter? J Rheumatol 2004;31:1–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Durez P,
    2. Malghem J,
    3. Toukap AN,
    4. Depresseux G,
    5. Lauwerys BR,
    6. Westhovens R,
    7. et al.
    Treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized magnetic resonance imaging study comparing the effects of methotrexate alone, methotrexate in combination with infliximab, and methotrexate in combination with intravenous pulse methylprednisolone. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:3919–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Quinn MA,
    2. Conaghan PG,
    3. O’Connor PJ,
    4. Karim Z,
    5. Greenstein A,
    6. Brown A,
    7. et al.
    Very early treatment with infliximab in addition to methotrexate in early, poor-prognosis rheumatoid arthritis reduces magnetic resonance imaging evidence of synovitis and damage, with sustained benefit after infliximab withdrawal. Results from a twelve-month randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:27–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Hirose W,
    2. Nishikawa K,
    3. Hirose M,
    4. Nanki T,
    5. Sugimoto H
    . Response of early active rheumatoid arthritis to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: Evaluation by magnetic resonance imaging. Mod Rheumatol 2009;19:20–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Martinez-Martinez MU,
    2. Cuevas-Orta E,
    3. Reyes-Vaca G,
    4. Baranda L,
    5. Gonzalez-Amaro R,
    6. Abud-Mendoza M
    . Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with complete remission treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or anti-tumour necrosis factor α agents. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:134–5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ejbjerg BJ,
    2. Vestergaard A,
    3. Jacobsen S,
    4. Thomsen HS,
    5. Ostergaard M
    . The smallest detectable difference and sensitivity to change of magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic scoring of structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis finger, wrist, and toe joints: A comparison of the OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score applied to different joint combinations and the Sharp/van der Heijde radiographic score. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2300–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Palosaari K,
    2. Vuotila J,
    3. Takalo R,
    4. Jartti A,
    5. Niemela RK,
    6. Karjalainen A,
    7. et al.
    Bone oedema predicts erosive progression on wrist MRI in early RA — A 2-yr observational MRI and NC scintigraphy study. Rheumatology 2006;45:1542–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. McQueen FM,
    2. Stewart N,
    3. Crabbe J,
    4. Robinson E,
    5. Yeoman S,
    6. Tan PL,
    7. et al.
    Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals a high prevalence of erosions at four months after symptom onset. Ann Rheum Dis 1998;57:350–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. McQueen FM,
    2. Stewart N,
    3. Crabbe J,
    4. Robinson E,
    5. Yeoman S,
    6. Tan PL,
    7. et al.
    Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals progression of erosions despite clinical improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58:156–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Conaghan PG,
    2. O’Connor P,
    3. McGonagle D,
    4. Astin P,
    5. Wakefield RJ,
    6. Gibbon WW,
    7. et al.
    Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: A randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:64–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Ostergaard M,
    2. Hansen M,
    3. Stoltenberg M,
    4. Jensen KE,
    5. Szkudlarek M,
    6. Pedersen-Zbinden B,
    7. et al.
    New radiographic bone erosions in the wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis are detectable with magnetic resonance imaging a median of two years earlier. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:2128–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Klippel JH,
    2. Crofford LJ,
    3. Sone JH,
    4. Weyand CM
    . Primer on the rheumatic diseases. Atlanta: Arthritis Foundation; 2001:209–32.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Ferrara JL
    . Cytokines and the regulation of tolerance. J Clin Invest 2000;105:1043–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Firestein GS
    . Evolving concepts of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Immunol 2003;432:356–61.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. O’Shea JJ,
    2. Ma A,
    3. Lipsky P
    . Cytokines and autoimmunity. Nat Rev Immunol 2002;2:37–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. van Vollenhoven RF,
    2. Kinnman N,
    3. Vincent E,
    4. Wax S,
    5. Bathon J
    . Atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:1782–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Genovese MC,
    2. Kinnman N,
    3. Bourdonnaye LG,
    4. Rossi PC,
    5. Tak PP
    . Atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor antagonist therapy: Results of a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:1793–803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Ismail N,
    2. Neyra R,
    3. Hakim RM
    . Plasmapheresis. In: Daugirdas JT, Blake PG, Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dialysis. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:231–62.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Yeh JH,
    2. Chen WH,
    3. Chiu HC,
    4. Bai CH
    . Clearance studies during subsequent sessions of double filtration plasmapheresis. Artif Organs 2006;30:111–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Yeh JH,
    2. Chen WH,
    3. Chiu HC
    . Complications of double-filtration plasmapheresis. Transfusion 2004;44:1621–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Hatano Y,
    2. Katagiri K,
    3. Arakawa S,
    4. Umeki T,
    5. Takayasu S,
    6. Fujiwara S
    . Successful treatment by double-filtration plasmapheresis of a patient with bullous pemphigoid: Effects in vivo on transcripts of several genes for chemokines and cytokines in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Br J Dermatol 2003;148:573–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Yu XX,
    2. Xu P,
    3. Gao P,
    4. Ma JR,
    5. Tian JG,
    6. Jiang SH,
    7. et al.
    Observation on effect of double filtration plasmapheresis on patients with active rheumatoid arthritis in active stage. Chinese Crit Care Med 2005;17:568–9.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Yu XX,
    2. Tian JG,
    3. Wang LX,
    4. Zhang QJ,
    5. Xu P,
    6. Ma JR,
    7. et al.
    Correlation between the body copper level and active rheumatoid arthritis. Chinese Remedies Clinics 2007;7:88–90.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    1. Liu JD,
    2. Zhang C,
    3. Li WS,
    4. Lun LD
    . Double filtration plasmapheresis for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A study of 21 cases. Artif Organs 1997;21:96–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Matsuda Y,
    2. Tsuda H,
    3. Takasaki Y,
    4. Hashimoto H
    . Double filtration plasmapheresis for the treatment of a rheumatoid arthritis patient with extremely high level of C-reaction protein. Ther Apher Dial 2004;8:404–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 39, Issue 6
1 Jun 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of Double Filtration Plasmapheresis, Leflunomide, and Methotrexate on Inflammatory Changes Found Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effects of Double Filtration Plasmapheresis, Leflunomide, and Methotrexate on Inflammatory Changes Found Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
XIAOXIA YU, LIXIN WANG, PING XU, WEIWEI LU, GUOBIN LAN, LIFENG PING, XIAOLEI WANG, JUNGE TIAN, JUNLAN LIU
The Journal of Rheumatology Jun 2012, 39 (6) 1171-1178; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.110978

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Effects of Double Filtration Plasmapheresis, Leflunomide, and Methotrexate on Inflammatory Changes Found Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
XIAOXIA YU, LIXIN WANG, PING XU, WEIWEI LU, GUOBIN LAN, LIFENG PING, XIAOLEI WANG, JUNGE TIAN, JUNLAN LIU
The Journal of Rheumatology Jun 2012, 39 (6) 1171-1178; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.110978
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparative Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines Against COVID-19 Infection Among Patients With Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases on Immunomodulatory Medications
  • Clinimetric Validation of the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index in Patients With Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis in Ixekizumab Trials
  • Sex-Specific Differences in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire