Skip to main content
Download PDF

Defining the relationship between pain intensity and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of six studies

Arthritis Research & Therapy volume 24, Article number: 218 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Pain is the main concern of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) while reducing disease activity dominates specialist management. Disease activity assessments like the disease activity score for 28 joints with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) omit pain creating an apparent paradox between patients’ concerns and specialists’ treatment goals. We evaluated the relationship of pain intensity and disease activity in RA with three aims: defining associations between pain intensity and disease activity and its components, evaluating discordance between pain intensity and disease activity, and assessing temporal changes in pain intensity and disease activity.

Methods

We undertook secondary analyses of five trials and one observational study of RA patients followed for 12 months. The patients had early and established active disease or sustained low disease activity or remission. Pain was measured using 100-mm visual analogue scales. Individual patient data was pooled across all studies and by types of patients (early active, established active and established remission). Associations of pain intensity and disease activity were evaluated by correlations (Spearman’s), linear regression methods and Bland-Altman plots. Discordance was assessed by Kappa statistics (for patients grouped into high and low pain intensity and disease activity). Temporal changes were assessed 6 monthly in different patient groups.

Results

A total of 1132 patients were studied: 490 had early active RA, 469 had established active RA and 173 were in remission/low disease activity. Our analyses showed, firstly, that pain intensity is associated with disease activity in general, and particularly with patient global assessments, across all patient groups. Patient global assessments were a reasonable proxy for pain intensity. Secondly, there was some discordance between pain intensity and disease activity across all disease activity levels, reflecting similar discrepancies in patient global assessments. Thirdly, there were strong temporal relationships between changes in disease activity and pain intensity. When mean disease activity fell, mean pain intensity scores also fell; when mean disease activity increased, there were comparable increases in pain intensity.

Conclusions

These findings show pain intensity is an integral part of disease activity, though it is not measured directly in DAS28-ESR. Reducing disease activity is crucial for reducing pain intensity in RA.

Introduction

Pain remains a major challenge for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Most patients experience regular pain of at least moderate intensity [1, 2]. Although patients emphasise the importance of controlling their pain [3], reducing disease activity is the dominant goal of current specialist management [4]. Measuring disease activity provides a single score calculated by combining diverse clinical assessments. The main disease activity scores combine tender and swollen joint counts, acute phase marker measurements like the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and patient global assessments (PtGA). They omit assessments of pain intensity, which creates an apparent paradox. It means RA patients’ main concern, pain, appears to be ignored by specialists’ focus on reducing disease activity.

International pain management guidelines in inflammatory arthritis highlight the need to reduce disease activity to minimise RA pain, aiming for remission or low disease activity (LDA) [5]. Despite such recommendations, several key evidence gaps exist in understanding how pain intensity is related to disease activity. Our goal is to provide evidence to address these gaps.

The first evidence gap is understanding the extent to which the different components of disease activity—swollen joint counts (SJC), tender joint counts (TJC), ESR levels and PtGA scores—drive its association with pain intensity. There is some evidence PtGA scores are strongly associated with pain intensity [6,7,8] while SJC and ESR are only weakly associated [9]. However, these relationships require better characterisation.

A second evidence gap is the extent of discordance between pain intensity and disease activity. Mean pain intensity scores are lower in groups of patients with RA in remission and LDA [10,11,12], but in real-world settings many individual patients in remission have substantial pain [13]. The extent of “discordance” between pain intensities and disease activity in moderate (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA) is unknown, though the existence of “rheumatoid robustus” patients with active disease but few symptoms suggest it may be fairly common [14].

A third evidence gap is whether a dynamic relationship exists between pain intensity and disease activity in which increases in pain intensities are accompanied by increases in disease activity and vice versa. Studies of their relationship are almost entirely cross-sectional analyses at single time-points [10,11,12]. Both measures are dynamic outcomes with marked within-individual variability over time [15, 16]. To be certain controlling disease activity reduces pain intensity requires establishing a dynamic temporal relationship between them.

We have addressed these three evidence gaps in secondary analyses of five trials and a longitudinal observational cohort. These studies spanned active early and established RA and patients with persisting remission and LDA. Our three aims comprised: (1) defining associations between pain intensity and disease activity components, (2) evaluating discordance between pain intensity and disease activity and (3) assessing temporal changes in pain intensity and disease activity.

Methods

Studies and patients

We identified randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies which met the following criteria: we had designed the studies, patients were entered from 2000 onwards, the studies were grant-funded, they enrolled patients with RA, they lasted at least 12 months and baseline, six-month and 12-month data were collected on pain intensity scores, disease activity scores for 28 joints (DAS28) and disability. Six studies met these criteria; five were trials and one was an observational study. Two trials (CARDERA-1 [17] and CARDERA-2 [18]) enrolled patients with early active RA. Two trials (TACIT [19] and TITRATE [20]) enrolled patients with established active RA. One trial (OPTTIRA [21]) and one observational study (REMIRA [22]) enrolled patients in remission or LDA.

Clinical assessments

Patients were assessed independently by specialist nurses or equivalent health care professionals who did not know in the trials what treatment they were receiving. In all studies, disease activity was assessed using the Disease Activity Score with the Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate for 28 joints (DAS28-ESR) based on measurements of its four components. Pain intensity was measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Additional baseline data evaluated included age, sex, disease duration and body mass index (BMI).

Association between disease activity and pain intensity

We analysed this association at 12 months when the spread of disease activity was greatest by: (a) pooling all patients in the six studies and (b) pooling studies according to the types of patients enrolled as early active RA (CARDERA-1/CARDERA-2), established active RA (TACIT/TITRATE) and remission/LDA (OPTTIRA/REMIRA). These groups were selected as pain may be driven by different factors in early active RA (e.g. inflammation) compared to established RA (e.g. joint damage) and remission/LDA (e.g. non-inflammatory processes); grouping patients in this manner allowed us to examine relationships between disease activity and pain intensity in settings where pain pathogenesis may vary.

Statistical analyses

The analytic approaches were as follows. First, mean pain intensity scores were reported in patients stratified by conventional disease activity categories (remission [DAS28-ESR <2.6]; LDA [DAS28-ESR 2.6 to <3.2]; MDA [DAS28-ESR ≥3.2 to ≤5.1]; HDA [DAS28-ESR >5.1]. Second, Spearman’s correlations between pain intensity scores and DAS28-ESR and its components were calculated (correlation coefficients of 0 to 0.19, 0.2 to 0.39, 0.40 to 0.59, 0.6 to 0.79, and 0.8 to 1 were considered very weak, weak, moderate, strong and very strong correlations, respectively [23]). Third, the degree of variance in pain intensity scores explained by DAS28-ESR and its components was evaluated using multivariable linear regression models. These included pain intensity scores at 12 months as the response variable, and DAS28-ESR at 12 months, age, gender, ethnicity, treatment (DMARDs vs. Biologics) and baseline scores for DAS28-ESR and pain intensity as explanatory variables. Regression models were repeated for each DAS28-ESR component (in place of DAS28-ESR). Finally, as PtGA and pain intensity VAS are on the same scale (0 to 100 units), we constructed Bland-Altman plots to examine the agreement between the two measures at the group- and individual-level [24]. The standard deviation (SD) of the difference between the pain intensity VAS and PtGA was used to estimate the limits of agreement (with 95% of the differences lying between these).

The relationship between pain intensity scores and disease activity was also assessed over a very wide range of disease activity states by dividing DAS28-ESR scores for all patients combined into 13 categories, which were in steps of 0.50 from ≤1.5 to >7.5. Mean pain intensity scores (95% CI) and pain categories (low ≤34, moderate 35–74 and high >74) were calculated for each of the 13 DAS28-ESR categories.

Discordance between disease activity and pain intensity

DAS28-ESR and pain intensity scores were categorised into low, moderate or high levels, and the kappa statistic calculated. We considered kappa values of ≤0, 0.01 to 0.20, 0.21 to 0.40, 0.41 to 0.60, 0.61 to 0.80, and 0.81 to 1.00 as indicating none, none to slight, fair, moderate, substantial and almost perfect agreement, respectively [25]. For “low” disease activity levels, we pooled remission and LDA into a single group. For pain intensity, we used VAS cut-offs shown in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain to best identify those describing their pain as “mild” (≤34), “moderate” (>34 to < 74) and “severe” (≥74) [26]). These analyses were undertaken at 12 months, and in all RA patients (pooling studies) and studies grouped by the types of patients enrolled (early active, established active, remission/LDA).

In addition, data from all patients was divided into three disease activity categories (LDA/remission, MDA and HDA) and three pain intensity score categories (low ≤34, moderate 35–74 and high >74). In each of these nine categories, mean (95% CI) levels of DAS28-ESR components (PtGA, tender and swollen joint counts, and ESR) were calculated.

Impact of changing disease activity states on pain intensity scores over time

To examine the impact of moving between active (MDA/HDA) and inactive (LDA/remission) disease activity states over time, we allocated patients to one of four groups based on their DAS28-ESR scores at 6 and 12 months. The groups comprised DAS28-ESR levels of (1) >3.2 at 6 and 12 months (persistently active); (2) >3.2 at 6 months but ≤3.2 at 12 months (active then inactive); (3) ≤3.2 at 6 months but >3.2 at 12 months (inactive then active); (4) ≤3.2 at 6 and 12 months (persistently inactive). We reported mean pain intensity scores with 95% CIs at each time-point in studies stratified by the types of patients enrolled (early active trials, established active trials and remission/LDA studies).

We used three packages for different analyses: R (version 4.1.0), IBM SPSS (version 27) and STATA (version 16). All the analyses used original individual patient data which was combined across trials and studies to evaluate the different questions being addressed.

Results

Patients studied

A total of 1132 patients were studied (Table 1): 490 in early active RA trials (CARDERA-1/CARDERA-2), 469 in established active RA trials (TITRATE/TACIT) and 173 in remission/LDA studies (OPTTIRA/REMIRA). Most (66–82%) were female; mean ages were 54–57 years. Patients in early RA trials had short mean disease durations (0.1–0.3 years); those in established active RA trials and remission/LDA studies had longer mean disease durations (4–11 years).

Table 1 Patient characteristics and outcomes
Full size table

Baseline mean DAS28-ESR scores were 5.9 (95% CI 5.8, 6.0), 5.1 (95% CI 5.0, 5.2) and 2.0 (95% CI 1.9, 2.1) in the early and established active RA trials and remission/LDA studies. At 12 months, they were 4.3 (95% CI 4.1, 4.4), 3.7 (95% CI 3.6, 3.9) and 2.4 (95% CI 2.2, 2.5). Baseline mean pain intensity scores were 49 (95% CI 47, 51), 51 (95% CI 50, 52), and 17 (95% CI 14, 20) in the early and established active RA trials and remission/LDA studies. At 12 months, they were 33 (95% CI 31, 36), 35 (95% CI 33, 38) and 22 (95% CI 19, 26).

Association between disease activity and pain intensity

Mean pain intensity scores by disease activity states

Mean pain intensity scores rose as disease activity levels increased (Fig. 1). When all studies were pooled, 12-month mean pain intensity scores were 13 (95% CI 12, 15), 21 (95% CI 18, 25), 35 (95% CI 33, 37) and 61 (95% CI 58, 64) in patients in remission, LDA, MDA and HDA. However, superimposed plots of each patient’s pain VAS score (Fig. 1) showed there was a substantial spread of 12-month pain intensity scores in each category of disease activity. The pain scores formed a low cluster in remission/LDA; in contrast, they formed a high cluster in HDA. There was a broader spread of pain scores across the whole range in MDA. The same patterns were seen when patients were grouped by study type. Mean pain intensity scores were lowest in remission (range 12–14) and highest in HDA (range 53–69).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mean pain intensity scores stratified by disease activity categories at 12 months. Mean scores are represented by the black dots, and 95% confidence intervals by vertical black bars. Each patient’s pain VAS score is plotted as grey points, with “jitter” applied across the horizontal axis to prevent overplotting; early = early active RA trials; established = established active RA trials; remission/LDA = remission/LDA studies; REM = remission; LDA = low disease activity; MDA = moderate disease activity; HDA = high disease activity

Full size image

Spearman’s correlations

There were strong correlations between 12-month pain intensity and DAS28-ESR scores (Fig. 2) in all studies pooled (r = 0.64). When patients were grouped by study type correlations were stronger in early (r = 0.68) and established (r = 0.66) active RA trials than in remission/LDA studies (r = 0.52). The strength of correlations between pain intensity VAS and DAS28-ESR components varied considerably. They were strong with PtGA (r = 0.87 to 0.89), moderate to strong with TJC (r = 0.50 to 0.65), very weak to moderate with SJC (r = 0.14 to 0.58) and very weak with ESR (r = 0.05 to 0.10).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Scatterplots demonstrating relationship between pain intensity scores and DAS28-ESR and its components at 12 months. All studies = all studies pooled; early = early active RA trials; established = established active RA trials; remission/LDA= remission/LDA studies. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients with P-values are given for the variables plotted on each scatterplot and linear regression lines plotted

Full size image

Linear regression models

Analysis of data at 12 months using linear regression models showed DAS28-ESR and its components all had statistically significant associations with pain intensity scores in all studies pooled (Table 2). In established active RA trials, the SJC was not significantly associated with pain intensity scores; in remission/LDA studies, the SJC and ESR were not significantly associated with pain intensity scores. In all settings, in adjusted models, the PtGA explained most of the variance in pain intensity scores (76% to 86%). In contrast, ESR levels explained just 21% of the variance in pain intensity scores in early and established active RA trials.

Table 2 Linear regression models examining relationships between pain intensity scores and DAS28-ESR and its components at 12 months
Full size table

Agreement between pain intensity VAS and PtGA

Bland-Altman plots showed pain intensity VAS scores were very similar to PtGA scores with mean pain scores only 1.6 units higher than mean PtGA scores in all studies pooled (Fig. 3). This finding highlights the extent to which these two measures provide similar findings. Mean differences were larger in early active RA trials (mean difference 2.3) and established active RA trials (mean difference 1.4) than remission/LDA studies (mean difference 0.1). Differences between pain intensity VAS and PtGA were least at the high and low ends of measurement. There were substantial differences between scores in individual patients whose mean of these scores approached 50 units.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Bland-Altman plots of 12-month pain intensity scores and patient global assessments. Pain = pain intensity visual analogue scale scores; dashed lines show upper and lower limits of agreement

Full size image

Relationships across broad range of disease activity levels

The relationship between pain intensity and DAS28-ESR remained when DAS28-ESR scores were subdivided into 13 categories (≤1.50 to >7.50). Mean pain intensity scores increased incrementally from 8 (95% CI 6, 10) with DAS28-ESR ≤1.5, to 83 (95% CI 78, 89) with DAS28-ESR >7.5. For each 0.5 increase in DAS28-ESR, pain intensity scores increased by a mean of 6, though the actual increase across all DAS28-ESR levels ranged from 1 to 11.

Discordance between disease activity and pain intensity

Agreement between pain intensity and DAS28-ESR

The agreement between disease activity groups and low, moderate or high pain intensity scores was only “fair”. Kappa statistics for all studies pooled and by study type ranged from 0.263 to 0.307 (Table 3). Although most patients in remission/LDA had low pain intensity levels (81–92% across study types), a considerable number (7–17% across study types) had moderate pain levels. In addition, many patients in MDA also had low pain intensity levels (45–59% across study types), and many patients in HDA had only moderate pain intensity levels (44–71% across study types). Similar patterns of agreement were seen in all study types.

Table 3 Agreement between disease activity and pain categories at 12 months
Full size table

The relationship between pain categories and disease activity continued to show evidence of some discordance when DAS28-ESR scores were subdivided into 13 categories. Only patients with DAS28-ESR scores ≤2.0 had no high pain scores; 165/178 (93%) had low pain scores and 13/178 (7%) had moderate pain scores. Only patients with DAS28-ESR scores >7.0 had no low pain scores; 14/39 (36%) had moderate pain scores and 25/39 (64%) had high pain scores. All 13 DAS28-ESR categories included some patients with moderate pain scores.

Pain categories and different DAS28-ESR components

The discordance between pain intensity and disease activity in some individuals appeared to reflect varying contributions of the different components of DAS28-ESR scores to overall disease activity (Table 4). In patients in LDA or remission, the minority of patients with high pain scores also had relatively high PtGA scores and TJCs; in contrast, the majority of patients in LDA or remission with low pain scores also had low PtGA scores and TJCs. Similarly, the minority of patients with HDA with low pain scores also had relatively low PtGA scores and TJCs; in contrast, the majority of patients with moderate or high pain scores also had high PtGA scores and TJCs.

Table 4 Mean DAS28-ESR component scores across pain categories at 12 months
Full size table

Impact of changing disease activity states on pain intensity scores over time

Changes in pain intensity scores mirrored changes in disease activity scores at 6 and 12 months (Fig. 4). When patients had MDA or HDA at 6 or 12 months, they also had relatively high pain scores (means ranging from 29 to 58). When patients had LDA or remission at 6 or 12 months, they also had relatively low pain scores (means ranging from 9 to 33). Changing from MDA/HDA to LDA/remission resulted in a change from high to low pain scores and vice versa. In trials of early and established active RA, achieving LDA/remission at 6 or 12 months resulted in falls in mean pain scores from baseline of over 60%, but achieving MDA/HDA resulted in falls in mean pain scores of less than 35%. In remission/LDA studies, persisting LDA and remission resulted in increases in pain scores of less than 10%, but achieving MDA or HDA at 12 months resulted in increases in pain scores of more than 60%.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Mean pain intensity scores at 6 and 12 months in patients by disease activity status at each time-point. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals; percentage change in pain intensity scores from baseline is shown

Full size image

Patients in trials of early and established active RA all initially had MDA/HDA. Those patients in whom MDA/HDA persisted at 6 and 12 months also had persistently high pain scores (mean 55 and 52 initially, and 44 and 49 at 12 months). In contrast, patients in remission/LDA studies all had initial LDA/remission. Those patients with persisting LDA/remission at 6 and 12 months had persistently low pain scores (mean 15 initially, and 16 at 12 months). In contrast, patients in trials of early and established active RA who achieved LDA/remission at 6 and 12 months had low pain scores at both time points (mean 37 and 49 initially, 13 and 17 at 6 months, and 9 and 15 at 12 months). Patients in remission/LDA studies with MDA/HDA at 6 and 12 months had high pain scores at both time points (mean 33 initially, 57 at 6 months and 58 at 12 months). Patients in trials of early and established active RA who achieved LDA/remission at 6 months but then reverted to MDA/HDA at 12 months showed a fall then a rise in pain scores (mean 39 and 48 initially, 13 and 18 at 6 months, and 30 and 37 at 12 months).

Discussion

Our secondary analysis of 1132 patients with RA followed over 12 months in five trials and one observational study shows three key findings. Firstly, pain intensity measured using a VAS is closely related to disease activity measured using DAS28-ESR. Pain levels mirrored disease activity levels in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Secondly, most patients in remission and LDA have low pain intensity scores but a considerable number of patients in MDA/HDA also report only low pain levels. Thirdly, the association between disease activity and pain intensity is largely attributable to the association between PtGA and pain VAS. Taken together, these findings strongly support targeting remission and LDA to minimise pain intensity with the caveat that not all patients with active RA experience substantial pain. The findings also suggest that pain itself is an integral part of the concept of “disease activity” with assessments of PtGA and pain intensity VAS measuring the same construct in many patients.

To our knowledge, our study is the first to examine the discordance between pain intensity and higher levels of disease activity; prior research has focused on pain scores in remission [13]. We found 46 to 59% of patients in MDA had low pain intensity levels and 44 to 71% of patients in HDA had moderate pain intensity levels. These findings reflect two concepts. First, pain in RA is driven by many factors in addition to inflammation and synovitis [27]. Second, the DAS28-ESR is a composite score with different components driving disease activity in different patients. Regardless of this finding, the evidence that achieving remission or LDA improves pain intensity as well as other outcomes like function, quality of life and radiological damage [12, 28, 29] is substantial and the case for treat-to-target remains compelling.

Our finding that PtGA and pain VAS are highly correlated and significantly associated replicates existing research in this field [6, 7] with Studenic et al. reporting that pain intensity scores explained 76% of the variance in PtGA scores [7]. Our Bland-Altman plots showing that agreement between PtGA and pain VAS is high when both scores are either high or low, but substantially less when the mean scores of PtGA and pain VAS are ~50 also replicates, existing research by Egmose et al. in the Danish DANBIO registry [8]. They reported that amongst 221 patients with RA, mean differences between PtGA and pain VAS were minimal at 5.2 units, but substantial for patients in whom the mean difference was ~50 (with upper and lower limits of agreement of 29.5 and −19.1). Taken together, our findings suggest that patients with PtGA-pain VAS concordance focus on pain intensity when answering PtGA, and patients with PtGA-pain VAS discordance focus on other aspects of their lives. Such variation in how people interpret the PtGA has been described in a mixed-methods study of 33 patients with RA, which reported that patients considered their pain, fatigue, function and psychological well-being, with comorbidities and RA sequelae also influencing scoring [30]. Other studies using quantitative approaches also demonstrate strong associations between PtGA and function, emotional distress and social participation [7, 8, 31]. In addition, the relationship between pain intensity and PtGA scores reflects previous research on the subjective components of disease activity scores by McWilliams and colleagues [32].

Unlike many other trials of synthetic, biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs, the trials included in our secondary analysis not only recorded pain intensity, but also measured it using a consistent method (pain VAS). It is notable that this is not consistently undertaken in other trials, and consequently systematic reviews of DMARDs provide only incomplete evidence that they reduce pain with many studies not measuring pain [33]. Trials of treat-to-target strategies are ideally placed to demonstrate directly that targeting remission/LDA reduces pain intensity scores. Three treat-to-target trials comparing intensive treatment with standard care reported significant benefits of intensive management on pain [20, 34, 35]. However, other trials of treat-to-target strategies either compared different active treatment strategies which had similar impacts on pain or failed to report pain [36]. While these trials alone do not provide definitive evidence that treat-to-target optimises pain, when considered with our current secondary analysis and other observational studies in this area, the evidence in favour of targeting remission/LDA to control pain becomes highly persuasive.

We used a 100-mm VAS to measure pain intensity. This quantitative outcome measure is widely used to measure pain in RA trials and represents the primary outcome measure in many trials of chronic pain treatments [37]; it is also reliable and valid [38]. Its chief limitation is that it only captures one aspect (intensity) of a multidimensional problem (pain). Numerous other quantitative instruments exist that capture the broader aspects of RA pain [39], such as the RA Pain Scale, which contains 24 items measuring the physiological, affective, sensory-discriminative, and cognitive aspects of pain [40]. However, these more comprehensive tools are not widely used in RA trials, with a previous systematic review of RA trial patient-reported outcome measure use reporting that amongst 250 studies only 40% reported pain, of which 89% used the pain VAS or numeric rating scale [41]. Furthermore, the subjective nature of a person’s pain experience (which cannot be directly observed by clinicians and researchers) has led Wideman et al. to propose the use of a multimodal assessment model of pain [42], which incorporates both qualitative methods to evaluate the pain experience and pain expression in addition to more widely used quantitative methods. This model may change how pain in RA is assessed and managed in the future, with further research required to determine the extent to which controlling disease activity affects the broader aspects of pain (including its experience and expression) in patients with RA.

Our secondary analysis has several strengths. First, it assessed a large number of patients with RA from multiple English centres (optimising generalisability). Second, its key findings were replicated across patient groups (early and established RA, active and inactive disease) increasing their reliability. Third, the trials used rigorous highly standardised approaches to data collection. It also has important limitations. First and foremost, the secondary analyses were not pre-specified at study conception; consequently, we have not tested specific pre-defined hypotheses. Second, disease activity was evaluated using the DAS28-ESR. The findings may have differed if other composite assessments were used such as the simple disease activity index and the clinical disease activity index, which also include assessors’ global assessments [43]. Four of the trials and studies (CARDERA1, TITRATE, OPTTIRA and REMIRA) recorded 12-month assessors’ global assessments; Spearman’s correlations showed these had weaker associations with pain intensity scores than PGA but stronger than joint counts. Third, only patients with complete data at 0, 6 and 12 months were analysed. Analysing different data points may give a different picture. In particular, as pain intensity can change quite rapidly over time, the overall temporal relationships may be more complex. Fourthly, only a single pain dimension, pain intensity, was assessed. Further research is needed to establish why some patients with active RA have little pain while some patients in remission have moderately high pain intensities. Co-existing depression [44] or fibromyalgic rheumatoid may contribute [45, 46], though recent research suggests pain mechanisms are different in RA and fibromyalgia [47]. Finally, we did not consider differences between the various types of drug used. Conventional DMARDs, biologic DMARDs and glucocorticoids may all have different effects on pain intensity but our analyses has not evaluated this possibility.

Conclusions

Our results strongly support the EULAR inflammatory arthritis pain management guideline recommendation that the initial crucial step in managing RA pain is controlling disease activity [5]. They also indicate that pain itself is an integral part of “disease activity” with PtGA acting as a reasonable proxy for pain intensity in many, but not all, patients with RA. Given the substantial impact of disease activity on pain intensity, the benefits of other management approaches to control pain need to be evaluated in a manner that takes into account disease activity. Finally, the impact of reducing disease activity on pain intensity levels, particularly in patients with high initial pain intensities, appears far larger than that which can be achieved using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or analgesics, including opioids [48]. It therefore seems crucial to focus on reducing disease activity with disease-modifying drugs to control pain before considering additional drug therapies.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

CARDERA-1:

Combination Anti-rheumatic Drugs In Early Rheumatoid Arthritis 1 Trial

CARDERA-2:

Combination Anti-rheumatic Drugs In Early Rheumatoid Arthritis 2 Trial

CI:

Confidence interval

DAS28-ESR:

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using ESR

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

HDA:

High disease activity

LDA:

Low disease activity

MDA:

Moderate disease activity

OPTTIRA:

Optimising Treatment with Tumour Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial

PtGA:

Patient Global Assessment

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

REMIRA:

Remission In Rheumatoid Arthritis Study

SJC:

Swollen joint count

TACIT:

Tumour Necrosis Factor Inhibitors Versus Combination Intensive Therapy Trial

TITRATE:

Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapy Trial

TJC:

Tender joint count

VAS:

Visual analogue score

References

  1. Strand V, Wright GC, Bergman MJ, Tambiah J, Taylor PC. Patient expectations and perceptions of goal-setting strategies for disease management in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2015;42:2046–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Taylor P, Manger B, Alvaro-Gracia J, Johnstone R, Gomez-Reino J, Eberhardt E, et al. Patient perceptions concerning pain management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. J Int Med Res. 2010;38:1213–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heiberg T, Kvien TK. Preferences for improved health examined in 1,024 patients with rheumatoid arthritis: pain has highest priority. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47:391–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, Burmester GR, Dougados M, Kerschbaumer A, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:685–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Geenen R, Overman CL, Christensen R, Åsenlöf P, Capela S, Huisinga KL, et al. EULAR recommendations for the health professional’s approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:797–807.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Strand V, Kaine J, Alten R, Wallenstein G, Diehl A, Shi H, et al. Associations between Patient Global Assessment scores and pain, physical function, and fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials of tofacitinib. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Studenic P, Radner H, Smolen JS. Aletaha D Discrepancies between patients and physicians in their perceptions of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64:2814–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Egsmose EL, Madsen OR. Interplay between patient global assessment, pain, and fatigue and influence of other clinical disease activity measures in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:1187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McWilliams DF, Kiely PDW, Young A, Joharatnam N, Wilson D, Walsh DA. Interpretation of DAS28 and its components in the assessment of inflammatory and non-inflammatory aspects of rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Rheumatol. 2018;2:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown AK, Quinn MA, Karim Z, Conaghan PG, Peterfy CG, Hensor E, 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. ten Klooster PM, Vonkeman HE, Taal E, Siemons L, Hendriks L, de Jong AJ, et al. Performance of the Dutch SF-36 version 2 as a measure of health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Radner H, Smolen JS, Aletaha D. Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: benefit over low disease activity in patient-reported outcomes and costs. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16:R56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee YC, Cui J, Lu B, Frits ML, Iannaccone CK, Shadick NA, et al. Pain persists in DAS28 rheumatoid arthritis remission but not in ACR/EULAR remission: a longitudinal observational study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13:R83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. de Haas WH, de Boer W, Griffioen F, Oosten-Elst P. Rheumatoid arthritis, typus robustus. Ann Rheum Dis. 1973;32:91–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Scott IC, Ibrahim F, Panayi G, Cope AP, Garrood T, Vincent A, et al. TITRATE Programme Investigators. The frequency of remission and low disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and their ability to identify people with low disability and normal quality of life. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019;49:20–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mun CJ, Suk HW, Davis MC, Karoly P, Finan P, Tennen H, et al. Investigating intraindividual pain variability: methods, applications, issues, and directions. Pain. 2019;160:2415–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choy EH, Smith CM, Farewell V, Walker D, Hassell A, Chau L, et al. CARDERA (Combination Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early Rheumatoid Arhritis) Trial Group. Factorial randomised controlled trial of glucocorticoids and combination disease modifying drugs in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:656–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scott IC, Ibrahim F, Simpson G, Kowalczyk A, White-Alao B, Hassell A, et al. A randomised trial evaluating anakinra in early active rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34:88–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scott DL, Ibrahim F, Farewell V, O'Keeffe AG, Walker D, Kelly C, et al. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors versus combination intensive therapy with conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: TACIT non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2015;350:h1046.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Scott D, Ibrahim F, Hill H, Tom B, Prothero L, Baggott RR, et al. The clinical effectiveness of intensive management in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: The titrate trial. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50:1182–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ibrahim F, Lorente-Cánovas B, Doré CJ, Bosworth A, Ma MH, Galloway JB, et al. Optimizing treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis-a proof of principle and exploratory trial: is dose tapering practical in good responders? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:2004–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ma MHY, Defranoux N, Li W, Sasso EH, Ibrahim F, Scott DL, et al. A multi-biomarker disease activity score can predict sustained remission in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/statistics-square-one/11-correlation-and-regression. [Accessed 26th August 2021].

  24. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica. 2012;22:276–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Balk GA, Stewart RE. Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the visual analogue scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain. 2014;155:2545–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Walsh DA, McWilliams DF. Mechanisms, impact and management of pain in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014;10:581–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Aletaha D, Funovits J, Breedveld FC, Sharp J, Segurado O, Smolen JS. Rheumatoid arthritis joint progression in sustained remission is determined by disease activity levels preceding the period of radiographic assessment. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:1242–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Scott IC, Ibrahim F, Lewis CM, Scott DL, Strand V. Impact of intensive treatment and remission on health-related quality of life in early and established rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open. 2016;2:e000270.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ferreira RJO, de Wit M, Henriques M, Pinto AF, Duarte C, Mateus E, et al. ‘It can’t be zero!’ Difficulties in completing patient global assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed methods study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020;59:1137–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Craig ET, Perin J, Zeger S, Curtis JR, Bykerk VP, Bingham CO 3rd, et al. What Does the Patient Global Health Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis Really Tell Us? Contribution of Specific Dimensions of Health-Related Quality of Life. Arthritis Care Res. 2020;72:1571–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McWilliams DF, Zhang W, Mansell JS, Kiely PD, Young A, Walsh DA. Predictors of change in bodily pain in early rheumatoid arthritis: An inception cohort study. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64:1505–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hazlewood GS, Barnabe C, Tomlinson G, Marshall D, Devoe DJ, Bombardier C. Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016:CD010227.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Grigor C, Capell H, Stirling A, McMahon AD, Lock P, Vallance R, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Verstappen SM, Jacobs JW, van der Veen MJ, Heurkens AH, Schenk Y, ter Borg EJ, et al. Utrecht Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort study group. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wailoo A, Hock ES, Stevenson M, Martyn-St James M, Rawdin A, Simpson E, et al. Treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. SN Compr Clin Med. 2021;3:838–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113:9–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41:1073–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scott IC, Machin A, Mallen CD, Hider SL. The extra-articular impacts of rheumatoid arthritis: moving towards holistic care. BMC Rheumatol. 2018;30:32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Anderson DL. Development of an instrument to measure pain in rheumatoid arthritis: Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale (RAPS). Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45:317–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kilic L, Erden A, Bingham CO 3rd, Gossec L, Kalyoncu U. The reporting of patient-reported outcomes in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of 250 articles. J Rheumatol. 2016;43:1300–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wideman TH, Edwards RR, Walton DM, Martel MO, Hudon A, Seminowicz DA. The multimodal assessment model of pain: a novel framework for further integrating the subjective pain experience within research and practice. Clin J Pain. 2019;35:212–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Aletaha D, Smolen J. The Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI): a review of their usefulness and validity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5 Suppl 39):S100–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Euesden J, Matcham F, Hotopf M, Steer S, Cope AP, Lewis CM, et al. The relationship between mental health, disease severity, and genetic risk for depression in early rheumatoid arthritis. Psychosom Med. 2017;79:638–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Wolfe F, Häuser W, Hassett AL, Katz RS, Walitt BT. The development of fibromyalgia--I: examination of rates and predictors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Pain. 2011;152:291–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pollard LC, Kingsley GH, Choy EH, Scott DL. Fibromyalgic rheumatoid arthritis and disease assessment. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49:924–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sandström A, Ellerbrock I, Löfgren M, Altawil R, Bileviciute-Ljungar I, Lampa J, et al. Distinct aberrations in cerebral pain processing differentiating patients with fibromyalgia from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Pain. in press.

  48. NICE Guideline. Rheumatoid arthritis in adults: management. 2018. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng100. (Accessed 9th September 2021)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not relevant.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) through an Advanced Research Fellowship Award (NIHR300826) to ICS and a Programme Grant for Applied Research (RP-PG-0610–10,066) to DLS. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

    Fowzia Ibrahim, Margaret Ma & David L. Scott

  2. Level 10, Tower Block, Division of Rheumatology, University Medicine Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore

    Margaret Ma

  3. Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 119228, Singapore

    Margaret Ma

  4. Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK

    Ian C. Scott

  5. Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Haywood Hospital, Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, High Lane, Burslem, Staffordshire, UK

    Ian C. Scott

Authors
  1. Fowzia Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David L. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ian C. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FI, DS and IS designed and conceptualized the study and analysed and drafted the manuscript. MM contributed towards interpreting the data, and the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fowzia Ibrahim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All six studies have been described in detail previously: they were all approved by Research Ethics Committees and all participating patients gave written informed consent.

CARDERA was approved by the South East Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC (1) 99/04). It was registered as ISRCTN 32484878.

CARDERA-2 was approved by the South East Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number MREC 02/1/089). It was registered at ISRCTN 15819795.

TACIT was approved by University College London Hospital Research Ethics Committee (MREC Ref 07/Q0505/57). It was registered as ISRCTN 37438295.

TITRATE was approved by the London – West London & GTAC National Research Ethics Service Committee (REC Ref 13/LO1308). It was registered as ISRCTN 70160382

OPTTIRA was approved by the North West London Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref 10/H0720/69). It was registered as ISRCTN 28955701

REMIRA was approved by the Wandsworth Research Ethics Committee (Reference 09/H0803/154).

Consent for publication

Not relevant.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibrahim, F., Ma, M., Scott, D.L. et al. Defining the relationship between pain intensity and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of six studies. Arthritis Res Ther 24, 218 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-022-02903-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-022-02903-w

Keywords

  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Pain intensity
  • Disease activity assessment
  • Remission

Arthritis Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1478-6362

Contact us