In an article recently published in USA Today, the author discusses the possibility of remission in rheumatoid arthritis. It presents a case of a women who takes Enbrel and methotrexate and is living an active lifestyle. The advent of biological treatments for RA in the last 10-15 years has indeed made a huge impact on RA patients. In fact, my rheumatologist told me that she’s seen things change dramatically in her practice and patients. For this I am truly glad.
However, this author fails to accurately report the whole story. These amazing and expensive treatments are just that…they treat but don’t cure the disease. Remission is an elusive and perhaps temporary state. In 2011, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) in collaboration with the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), updated the criteria for remission. Using the ubiquitous measure of disease activity, the DAS28 ACR-EULAR, the new criteria are as follows:
At any time point, patient must satisfy all of the following:
Tender joint count - equal or less than 1
Swollen joint count - equal or less than1
C-reactive protein - equal or less than 1 mg/dl
Patient global assessment - equal or less than 1 (on a 0–10 scale)
(Felson, et. al, 2011, p 581)
That’s much more strict than the previous criteria and it would be difficult for many RA patients to meet this even on biological treatments. These new criteria are to be used for clinical trials for RA medications to be approved by the FDA. In fact, many previous clinical trials are considered a success if the patients met the old ACR criteria oftentimes reported as ACR 20, ACR 50, or ACR 70 meaning that the patient reported a 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement in symptoms. In most clinical trails, the majority of patients don’t meet the ACR 70 (see this package insert which reports clinical study results). This is not remission, only an improvement in symptoms.
In the USA Today article, it was reported that one study with Enbrel and methotrexate combination resulted “more than 75% of those treated with Enbrel and Methotrexate experienced no progression of joint damage after three years.“ That is one study, for one drug combination of which there are many, and was likely based on the less stringent ACR criteria used before 2011. Even if this data was applicable to all RA patients and medication combinations, that would still leave 25% of 1.5 million RA patients in the U.S. alone who do not meet “remission”. That is 375,000 patients! And that does not include the untold millions throughout the world.
Finally, there is the issue of failure of biological treatments. It is well documented that some patients don’t respond to biological treatments for a variety of reasons. In a recent research review, the researchers stated,
“However, about 20% to 40% of patients treated with a TNF inhibitor fail to achieve a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria, and more lose response over time (secondary failure or acquired therapeutic resistance) or experience adverse events following treatment with a TNF inhibitor.”
This failure from a large proportion of RA patients can be from lack of initial response, loss in response over time as the patient builds antibodies against the biological treatment proteins, or from severe side effects.
While I am so thankful for the advent of biological treatments and the huge impact that they have on RA patients, we must remain cognizant of the reality that these treatments are not cures, they don’t work for many patients, may fail to work over time, and they may give severe side effects. For these reasons, we must treat this chronic illness as not yet defeated or cured and scientific research must continue.
Postscript December 23, 2012…after many people commented on the article and sent letters to the author and editor, some changes were made to the title and article text. However, the author still does not scientifically define RA remission using current ACR criteria, does not detail the many other RA treatments, and avoids the topic of the large proportion of patients who do not respond to biologicals or fail to respond over time.








I always appreciate your posts. Packed with solid info and science! Glad you are feeling well enough to post!
Thank you for such an eloquent and factual response to that ridiculous and irresponsible USA Today article!
thanks. it got me perturbed when I read it and saw that the Arthritis Foundation shared it on their facebook page.
Thank you. Please, please PLEASE take the time to write a STRONG letter or post to the Arthritis Foundation and USA Today demanding a retraction of Janice Lloyd’s inaccurate, misleading, and damaging article. I have a strong research background and appreciate your article very much. People with rheumatoid arthritis and those who care about us need to continue to advocate for the dissemination of accurate information and hold those accountable who do not meet this standard.
Thanks Mary. Multiple people including myself contacted USA Today and the Arthritis Foundation.
Andrew, I’d like to add my thanks for your factual response to the USA Today article. Like many others, I have failed MTX + 2 different biologics, including Enbrel — and I now appear to be failing a 3rd biologic. It’s so disheartening to read articles like that presented in USA Today with blatantly false and misleading information.
Terri, Thanks for the comment. It’s too bad that the public has such misconceptions about RA. Sorry about you not responding to biologics…I can certainly relate! Just remember that you didn’t fail, the treatments failed.