Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41412621›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

PeRsonalIsed MEdicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PRIMERA) trial: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing routine care with a tailor-made approach.

Hamit Harun Dag, Agnes E M Looijen, Harald E Vonkeman, Annemiek Willemze, Lindy-Anne Korswagen, Roos C Padmos, Floris A van Gaalen, Ilja Tchetverikov, Jos H van der Kaap, Josien J Veris-van Dieren and 4 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Hamit Harun Dag *Rheumatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands h.dag@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-9487-6098
Agnes E M Looijen *Rheumatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5280-2182
Harald E VonkemanDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Annemiek WillemzeRheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lindy-Anne KorswagenRheumatology, Franciscus Gasthuis en Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Roos C PadmosRheumatology, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands.
Floris A van GaalenRheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ilja TchetverikovRheumatology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Jos H van der KaapRheumatology, Admiraal De Ruyter Hospital, Goes, The Netherlands.
Josien J Veris-van DierenRheumatology, Reumazorg ZWN, Roosendaal, The Netherlands.
Naghmeh RiyaziRheumatology, Haga Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Julia SpieringsDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2546-312X
Annette H M van der Helm-van MilRheumatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8572-1437
Pascal H P de JongRheumatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6628-6222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease, which current treatment guidelines insufficiently accommodate, as they predominantly emphasise the suppression of disease activity. However, a step towards personalised medicine is preferred to further optimise treatment and requires homogeneous subgroups with similarities in pathophysiological mechanisms and treatment responses. Prior research has already demonstrated notable differences in the pathophysiology of patients with autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA, as well as differences in treatment responses, which may serve as a strong basis for personalised medicine. Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that an early treatment response is indicative of future courses. Based on these findings, we designed a personalised medicine trial in RA that compares the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tailor-made approach with routine care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PeRsonalIsed Medicine in RA (PRIMERA) trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that includes 300 adult patients with newly diagnosed, DMARD-naïve RA, according to 2010 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR criteria. Patients are randomised into either routine care or a tailor-made approach. Both management approaches use a treat-to-target strategy, aiming for low disease activity (LDA, Disease Activity Score using 44 joints (DAS) ≤2.4). In routine care, initial treatment consists of methotrexate along with a single intramuscular dose of glucocorticoids (GCs) and treatment can be intensified after 3, 7 and 10 months if LDA is not reached. Conversely, initial treatment in the tailor-made approach depends on the presence of autoantibodies, with patients with autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA starting with hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate together with a single intramuscular dose of GCs, respectively. Medication intensifications will be allowed at months 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10. Intensifications at months 1 and 4 depend on whether patients have an early sufficient response to GCs and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), respectively. The tailor-made approach is superior to routine care if no more biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) or tsDMARDs are used after 10 months of treatment, while the mean DAS over time is lower. Our primary outcome is the proportional difference in bDMARD or tsDMARD usage after 10 months of treatment between routine care and the tailor-made approach. Secondary outcomes are DAS over time, time to achieve LDA, cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcome measurements over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by Erasmus MC Medical Ethics Review Committee (MEC-2020-0825). The results will be disseminated through peer-review journals and medical congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16170070.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidPrecision MedicineAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMethotrexateMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAntirheumatic AgentsMethotrexatedisease managementhealth care costspatient reported outcome measuresrandomized controlled trialrheumatologytreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID41412621
PMCPMC12718583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.