Maxime Verhoeven

86 Chapter 5 Outcomes for erosions were partly in line with those of total SvdH scores, with a RR of 1.03 (95%CI 0.91 – 1.17) for the subgroup with a high-level of baseline joint damage versus a RR of 1.02 (95%CI 0.93 – 1.10) for the subgroup with a low-level of baseline DAS28, see Supplementary Figure S1. This indicates that the advantage of TCZ+MTX over TCZ also seemed to disappear in these subgroups. In the subgroup with a low-level of joint damage at baseline, the absolute risk difference was 5%, versus only 2% in the subgroup with a high-level of baseline joint damage, see supplementary Table S3. Regarding JSN, outcomes were less clear regarding the overall advantage of TCZ+MTX, however effect modification was observed for baseline joint damage (p=0.20), see Supplementary Table S1. In the subgroup with a low-level of joint damage at baseline the absolute risk difference was 3%, versus 8% in the subgroup with a high-level of baseline joint damage, see supplementary Table S3. Established RA Overall, in established RA patients, TCZ-monotherapy resulted in less prevention of radiographic progression (total SvdH scores) than TCZ+MTX combination therapy (RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.87 – 1.07). However, these effects were modified by baseline joint damage (TCZ vs. TCZ+MTX [p=0.08]), and disease duration (TCZ vs. TCZ+MTX [p=0.04]), see Supplementary Table S4. In subgroups, the advantage of TCZ+MTX over TCZ on total SvdH scores disappeared with a high-level of baseline disease duration (RR for preventing progression of TCZ versus TCZ+MTX 1.04, 95%CI 0.84 – 1.30 versus RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.64 – 1.06 in the low-level baseline disease duration subgroup), see Figure 2 and Supplementary Table S5. Translated to absolute differences in the chance of preventing radiographic progression between treatment regimens, the absolute risk difference was 10% in the subgroup with a low-level of baseline disease duration, versus only 2% in the subgroup with a high-level of baseline disease duration, see supplementary Table S6. Outcomes for erosions were in line with those of total SvdH scores, with a RR of 1.04 (95%CI 0.87 – 1.25) for the high-level baseline disease duration subgroup, see Supplementary Figure S2. In the subgroup with a low-level of baseline disease duration the absolute risk difference was 10%, versus only 3% in the subgroup with a high-level of baseline disease duration, see supplementary Table S6. For JSN as outcome, results were less clear regarding the overall advantage of TCZ+MTX, however effect modification was observed (p=0.12), see Supplementary Table S4. In the subgroup with a low-level of baseline disease duration the absolute risk difference was 7%, versus 0% in the subgroup with a high-level of baseline disease duration, see supplementary Table S6.