Properties of the Collaborative Systems Metrics

The paper describes the key properties of the collaborative systems. There are presented main quality characteristics for the collaborative systems. The paper analyzes different types of indicators. They represent the base for further metrics definition. There are described the indicators most important characteristics as sensitivity, non catastrophic, non compensatory and representatives.collaborative system, metric

PROPERTIES OF THE COLLABORATIVE SYSTEMS METRICS

The paper describes the key properties of the collaborative systems. There are presented main quality characteristics for the collaborative systems. The paper analyzes different types of indicators. They represent the base for further metrics definition. There are described the indicators most important characteristics as sensitivity, non catastrophic, non compensatory and representatives.collaborative systems

Impairment of Cd4+ T Cell Responses during Chronic Virus Infection Prevents Neutralizing Antibody Responses against Virus Escape Mutants

We have shown previously that neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are important contributors to the long-term immune control of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection, particularly if cytotoxic T cell responses are low or absent. Nevertheless, virus escape from the nAb response due to mutations within the surface glycoprotein gene may subsequently allow the virus to persist. Here we show that most of the antibody-escape viral mutants retain their immunogenicity. We present evidence that the failure of the infected host to mount effective humoral responses against emerging neutralization-escape mutants correlates with the rapid loss of CD4+ T cell responsiveness during the establishment of viral persistence. Similar mechanisms may contribute to the persistence of some human pathogens such as hepatitis B and C viruses, and human immunodeficiency virus

ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis: 2022 update

Objectives: To update the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: Following the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews were conducted on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment of axSpA. In a task force meeting, the evidence was presented, discussed, and overarching principles and recommendations were updated, followed by voting. Results: Five overarching principles and 15 recommendations with a focus on personalised medicine were agreed: eight remained unchanged from the previous recommendations; three with minor edits on nomenclature; two with relevant updates (#9, 12); two newly formulated (#10, 11). The first five recommendations focus on treatment target and monitoring, non-pharmacological management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice pharmacological treatment. Recommendations 6-8 deal with analgesics and discourage long-term glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for pure axial involvement. Recommendation 9 describes the indication of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs, that is, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i)) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs, ie, Janus kinase inhibitors) for patients who have Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score ≥2.1 and failed ≥2 NSAIDs and also have either elevated C reactive protein, MRI inflammation of sacroiliac joints or radiographic sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start a TNFi or IL-17i. Recommendation 10 addresses extramusculoskeletal manifestations with TNF monoclonal antibodies preferred for recurrent uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease, and IL-17i for significant psoriasis. Treatment failure should prompt re-evaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities (#11). If active axSpA is confirmed, switching to another b/tsDMARD is recommended (#12). Tapering, rather than immediate discontinuation of a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (#13). The last recommendations (#14, 15) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. Conclusions: The 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA. Keywords: Biological Therapy; Spondyloarthritis; Therapeutic

Joint-level responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate: a post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Start

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a variable impact on different synovial joints, with inflammation being more commonly observed in some joints than others. Emerging evidence suggests that the anatomical variation in pathophysiology could result in differential responses to treatments across the joints, both within and between modes of action. This analysis aimed to characterize joint-specific responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate monotherapy in patients with RA. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from the phase III trial ORAL Start (NCT01039688), in methotrexate-naïve patients with RA. A paired joint pathology score (PJPS), derived from bilateral tender/swollen joint counts, was calculated. The percentage change from baseline in PJPS (%∆PJPS) and treatment-specific responses (tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily [BID] vs methotrexate; tofacitinib 5 vs 10 mg BID) for each patient joint pair, except for those with baseline/post-baseline PJPS = 0, were calculated at month 3, month 6, and month 12. Radiographic progression was similarly assessed using the Modified Total Sharp Score at month 6 and month 12. RESULTS: In methotrexate-naïve patients, differences in %∆PJPS demonstrated greater responses with tofacitinib vs methotrexate in most joint locations. Lesser responses with tofacitinib vs methotrexate were observed in most joints of the feet, particularly at month 12. Despite this, radiographic progression at month 12 was significantly worse in the foot (and metacarpophalangeal) joints of patients receiving methotrexate vs tofacitinib. CONCLUSION: We observed variation in joint-specific responses with tofacitinib and methotrexate monotherapy. Despite a proximal-distal efficacy gradient, with better clinical responses in the feet, patients receiving methotrexate monotherapy demonstrated more radiographic progression in the foot joints compared with those receiving tofacitinib. These findings suggest that body site- and therapy-specific characteristics may interact to produce differential treatment responses

Effectiveness of individualized ressource-oriented joint protection education in people with rheumatoid arthritis : a randomized controlled trial

Objective: The modern joint protection (JP) concept for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an active coping strategy to improve daily tasks and role performance by changing working methods and using assistive devices. Effective group JP education includes psycho-educational interventions. The Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) is an interactive hands-on-tool, assessing (a) the individual's perceived burden of illness and (b) relevant individual resources. Both issues are important for intrinsic motivation to take action and change behaviour. This study compared individual conventional JP education (C-JP) with PRISM-based JP education (PRISM-JP). Methods: An assessor-blinded multicentre randomized controlled trial, including four JP education sessions over 3 weeks, with assessments at baseline and 3 months. Results: In total 53 RA patients participated. At 3 months, the PRISM-JP (n = 26) participants did significantly better compared to the C-JP participants (n = 27) in JP behaviour (p = 0.02 and p = 0.008 when corrected for baseline values), Arthritis Self-efficacy (ASES, p = 0.015) and JP self-efficacy (JP-SES, p = 0.047). Within-group analysis also showed less hand pain (p < 0.001) in PRISM-JP group. Conclusion: PRISM-JP more effectively supported learning of JP methods, with meaningful occupations, resource activation and self-efficacy acting as important mediators. Practice implications: PRISM improved patient–clinician communication and is feasible for occupational therapy

18F-Fluoride PET/CT for detection of sacroiliitis in ankylosing spondylitis

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of 18F-fluoride-PET/CT (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) arthritis in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: Included in the study were 15 patients with AS according to the modified New York criteria (AS group) and with active disease and 13 patients with mechanical low back pain (MLBP; control group) who were investigated with whole-body 18F-fluoride PET/CT. The ratio of the uptake in the SIJ and that in the sacrum (SIJ/S) was calculated for every joint. Results: The mean SIJ/S ratio of 30 quantified joints in the AS group was 1.66 (range 1.10-3.07) with PET/CT, and the mean SIJ/S ratio of 26 quantified joints in the MLBP group was 1.12 (range 0.71-1.52). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for SIJ arthritis was 0.84. With plain radiography as a the gold standard and taking an SIJ/S ratio of >1.3 as the threshold, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy on a per patient basis were 80%, 77% and 79%, respectively. On a per SIJ basis, the greatest sensitivity (94%) was found in grade 3 sacroiliitis (n = 16). Conclusion: Our results suggest that quantitative 18F-fluoride PET/CT may play a role in the diagnosis of sacroiliitis in active AS and is an alternative to conventional bone scintigraphy in times of molybdenum shortag

Characterisation of patients with axial psoriatic arthritis and patients with axial spondyloarthritis and concomitant psoriasis in the SCQM registry

BACKGROUND Within the spectrum of spondyloarthritides, axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) present with overlapping features. Axial involvement in PsA (axial PsA) is treated according to recommendations for axSpA, as specific studies in axial PsA are scarce. We compared characteristics of patients with axSpA (particularly of patients with axSpA and concomitant psoriasis (pso)) with those of patients with axial PsA. METHODS Patients with axSpA and PsA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management (SCQM) registry were included if information on pso and axial involvement was available. Patients with AxSpA were stratified by axSpA with and without pso (axSpA±pso) and patients with PsA were stratified to axial PsA or strictly peripheral PsA. RESULTS Previous or current psoriasis was observed in 479/4489 patients with axSpA (10.7%). Of 2631 patients with PsA, 1153 (43.8%) presented with axial involvement (opinion of the treating rheumatologist). Compared with patients with axSpA+pso, patients with axial PsA were older at symptom onset and at inclusion in SCQM, were less frequently HLA-B27 positive, had back pain less frequently and a higher prevalence of dactylitis and peripheral arthritis. A positive family history of pso or PsA was more frequent in axial PsA, while a positive family history of axSpA was more frequent in patients with axSpA+pso. Disease activity, function and mobility were comparable in axSpA+pso versus axial PsA. CONCLUSION Patients with axial PsA differ from patients with axSpA+pso in important demographic and clinical characteristics, and genetically, but present with a comparable disease burden. Treatment studies specifically dedicated to axial PsA seem warranted

Does tenosynovitis of the hand detected by B-mode ultrasound predict loss of clinical remission in rheumatoid arthritis? Results from a real-life cohort.

Objective The role of US-detected tenosynovitis (USTS) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether tenosynovitis can predict a flare in rheumatoid arthritis patients in remission in a real-life cohort. Methods Rheumatoid arthritis patients from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort were included in this study if they were in clinical remission, defined by 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28-ESR) <2.6, and had an available B-mode tenosynovitis score. The patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of tenosynovitis (USTS+ vs. USTS-). Cox proportional hazard models were used for time-to-event analysis until the loss of remission, after adjustment for multiple confounders. The impact of baseline US performed early in remission and the advent of flares at different fixed time periods after baseline were investigated in sensitivity analysis. Results Tenosynovitis was detected in 10% of 402 rheumatoid arthritis patients in remission. At baseline, USTS+ patients in remission had significantly higher DAS28-ESR (mean (SD): USTS- 1.8 (0.5) versus USTS+ 2.0 (0.5); p = 0.0019) and higher additional disease activity parameters, such as physician global assessment, and simplified- and clinical-disease activity index. Joint synovitis detected by B-mode US was associated with tenosynovitis (mean (SD) 7.2 (6.3) in USTS- versus 9.0 (5.4) in USTS+, respectively; p = 0.02). A disease flare was observed in 69% of remission phases, with no differences in the time to loss of remission between USTS+ and USTS- groups. Conclusion While US-detected tenosynovitis was associated with higher disease activity parameters in rheumatoid arthritis patients in clinical remission, it was not able to predict a flare