Characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis patients at first presentation to a specialized rheumatology department

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive, debilitating, systemic, autoimmune disease that mainly affects the diarthrodial joints. It is the most common form of inflammatory arthritis that occurs in approximately 1% of adults. The main objective is to study the characteristics of patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) at first presentation to a specialized rheumatology department.Methods: The study included 122 consecutive patients with RA, fulfilling 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for RA at ‘Joint Disease Clinic’ of rheumatology department, at ISIC, New Delhi.Results: The mean age was 45.3 ± 12.4 years, F:M ratio, 8.4:1; maximum patients (31.1%) belonging to age group 30-40 years. Mean age at onset of symptoms was 38.1 ± 12.9 years and disease duration mode 5 years. 88% patients were literate and 59% referred by other patients. 14.8% patients had family history of RA, 7.38% (all males) were smokers. 16.4% female patients developed symptoms of arthritis within one year after delivery. 44.3% patients had severe, 50.8% moderate, 3.3% mild and 1.6% inactive disease (DAS 28[ESR] scoring system). 28.7% patients were taking treatment from alternative systems, 25.4% from orthopaedicians, 15.6% from internists and 8.2% from rheumatologists. Methotrexate and glucocorticoids were the most prescribed drugs (50.8% each) but in inappropriate doses. 23.8% patients had co-morbidities, hypothyroidism (9%) being the commonest.Conclusions: RA affects middle aged women. Hypothyroidism is the mostly associated autoimmune disease. The majority receive suboptimal / inappropriate treatment before visiting a rheumatologist. Most patients consult a rheumatologist at late stage in the disease often with deformities. Hence, increased awareness is needed about this disease among patients and doctors so that patients get timely referral to a rheumatologist for the proper management of this disease.

The Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis, the Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis: The Tangled Skein of Rheumatology

Since 1984 the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has been based upon the modified New York (mNY) criteria with mandatory presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, without which the diagnosis is not tenable. However, it may take years or decades for radiographic sacroiliitis to develop delaying the diagnosis for long periods. It did not matter in the past because no effective treatment was available. However, with the availability of a highly effective treatment, namely, tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi), the issue of early diagnosis of AS acquired an urgency. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria published in 2009 was a significant step towards this goal. These criteria described an early stage of the disease where sacroiliitis was demonstrable only on MRI but not on standard radiograph. Therefore, this stage of the disease was labelled “nonradiographic axial SpA” (nr-axSpA). But questions have been raised if, in search of early diagnosis, specificity was compromised. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA, USA) withheld approval for the use of TNFi in patients with nr-axSpA because of issues related to the specificity of these criteria. This review attempts to clarify some of these aspects of the nr-axSpA-AS relationship and also tries to answer the question whether ASAS classifiable radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) term can be interchangeably used with the term AS

Role of myositis-specific autoantibodies in personalized therapy

In a landmark breakthrough in 1976, Reichlin and Mattioli discovered the first myositis-specific antibody (MSA) called anti-Mi2 antibody that identified a specific clinical phenotype characterized by pathognomonic skin rash of dermatomyositis, typical proximal muscle weakness, good response to treatment, and the absence of interstitial lung disease and cancer. The discovery firmly placed inflammatory muscle diseases among the group of systemic rheumatic autoimmune diseases. Over the next four decades, a large number of additional MSAs have been discovered in this group of patients called “idiopathic inflammatory myopathy” (IIM). It is becoming clear that the increasing numbers of autoantibodies being discovered may necessitate a name change to “autoimmune myositis” (AIM), as recently suggested by a French-Canadian group. In the light of these discoveries, it was evident that a new classification system based on the combination of clinical phenotypes and the associated autoantibodies would soon be propounded. Preliminary report on such a classification was published in 2016 by the Swedish Group from Karolinska Institute led by Prof. Ingrid Lundberg. In October 2017, the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology published the provisional classification criteria for IIM with the aim to categorize patients in uniform subgroups of clinical phenotype for meaningful drug trials. These are exciting times for clinicians, for research scientists, and for the patients with inflammatory myositis with reasons to be optimistic about a bright future. This short review provides a summary of the present knowledge with emphasis on its clinical implications

A fascinating story of the discovery & development of biologicals for use in clinical medicine

A young physician starting a fresh career in medicine in this millennium would hardly stop to think about the genesis of a particular biological drug that he/she will be prescribing for a patient evaluated in the morning outpatient department. For him/her, this is now routine, and the question of ‘Who’, ‘How’ and ‘When’ about these biologicals would be the last thing on their mind. However, for those who came to the medical profession in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, these targeted drugs are nothing short of ‘miracles’. It would be a fascinating story for the young doctor to learn about the long journey that the dedicated biomedical scientists of yesteryears took to reach the final destination of producing such wonder drugs. The story is much like an interesting novel, full of twists and turns, heart-breaking failures and glorious successes. The biologicals acting as ‘targeted therapy’ have not only changed the natural history of a large number of incurable/uncontrollable diseases but have also transformed the whole approach towards drug development. From the classical empirical process, there is now a complete shift towards understanding the disease pathobiology focusing on the dysregulated molecule(s), targeting them with greater precision and aiming for better results. Seminal advances in understanding the disease mechanism, development of remarkably effective new technologies, greater knowledge of the human genome and genetic medicine have all made it possible to reach the stage where artificially developed ‘targeted’ drugs are now therapeutically used in routine clinical medicine

Real life experience of a screening strategy for latent tuberculosis before treatment with biologicals in indian patients with rheumatic diseases

Objective: The objective of the study was to study the effectiveness of a recommended screening strategy for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in patients with systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (SIRDs) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Methods: The study included patients being considered for bDMARD treatment. Screening strategy included screening with “4S symptom complex (current cough, fever, weight loss, and night sweats) for TB,” augmented Mantoux test using ten tuberculin unit (TU) strength simultaneously with QuantiFERON®-TB Gold (QFTG) test. Those with a Mantoux test reading of ≥10 mm induration at 48–72 h and/or with a positive QFTG test, were given TB prophylaxis before initiating bDMARDs. They were followed and monitored for any features of tuberculosis flare. Results: A total of 730 patients (265 rheumatoid arthritis, 400 axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA], 34 psoriatic arthritis, and 31 others) were considered for bDMARDs. Two hundred and sixty-seven (36.6%) were positive for LTBI. They were treated either with isoniazid monotherapy for 6 months or with rifampicin + isoniazid for 4 months. bDMARDs were started 1 month after initiating chemoprophylaxis. Five (0.68%) patients developed active TB disease in the follow-up. In a total of 2930 “control” patients with the same diseases but never having taken bDMARDs, 18 (0.61%) developed active TB disease. The proportion of patients developing active TBI during the same period of follow-up did not differ between those who were and those who were not treated with bDMARDs. None of the study participants had “4S” symptoms. Conclusion: The strategy of clinical screening for active TBI with “4S complex,” standard chest radiograph, and an augmented Mantoux testing (10 TU purified protein derivative, [PPD]) simultaneously with QFTG test for the screening of LTBI, was successful in identifying active TBI in patients treated with bDMARDs