Responsiveness of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis

Background: The comprehensive International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a selection of 96 categories from the ICF, representing relevant aspects in the functioning of patients with RA. Objectives: To study the responsiveness of the ICF Core Set for RA in rheumatological practice. Methods: A total of 46 patients with RA (72% women, mean (SD) age 53.6 (12.6) years, disease duration 6.3 (8.0) years) were interviewed at baseline and again after 6 months treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), applying the ICF Core Set for RA with qualifiers for problems on a modified three-point scale (no problem, mild/moderate, severe/complete). Patient-reported outcomes included Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey, and disease activity was calculated. Responsiveness was measured as change in qualifiers in ICF categories, and was also compared with change in patient-reported outcomes. Results: After 6 months of DMARD treatment, improvement by at least one qualifier was seen in 20% of patients (averaged across all ICF categories), 71% experienced no change and 9% experienced worsening symptoms. Findings were similar across the different aspects of functioning. Mainly moderate effect sizes were seen for 6-month changes in the ICF Core Set for RA, especially in patients with improved health status, with similar effect size for disease activity. The components in the ICF Core Set for RA were only weakly associated with patient-reported outcomes and disease activity. Conclusions: The ICF Core Set for RA demonstrated moderate responsiveness in this real-life setting of patients where minor changes occurred during treatment with DMARDs

Associations Between Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Arterial Stiffness in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Cross-sectional Study

Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Conventional versus ultrasound treat to target: no difference in magnetic resonance imaging inflammation or joint damage over 2 years in early rheumatoid arthritis

Objective. To investigate whether an ultrasound-guided treat-to-target strategy for early RA would lead to reduced MRI inflammation or less structural damage progression compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy.Methods. A total of 230 DMARD-naive early RA patients were randomized to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting DAS <1.6, no swollen joints and no power Doppler signal in any joint or a conventional strategy targeting DAS <1.6 and no swollen joints. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same DMARD escalation strategy. MRI of the dominant hand was performed at six time points over 2 years and scored according to the OMERACT RA MRI scoring system. A total of 218 patients had baseline and one or more follow-up MRIs and were included in the analysis. The mean MRI score change from baseline to each follow-up and the 2 year risk for erosive progression were compared between arms.Results. MRI bone marrow oedema, synovitis and tenosynovitis improved over the first year and was sustained during the second year of follow-up, with no statistically significant differences between the ultrasound and the conventional arms at any time point. The 2 year risk for progression of MRI erosions was similar in both treatment arms: ultrasound arm 39%, conventional arm 33% [relative risk 1.16 (95% CI 0.81, 1.66), P = 0.40].Conclusion. Incorporating ultrasound information in treatment decisions did not lead to reduced MRI inflammation or less structural damage compared with a conventional treatment strategy. The findings support that systematic use of ultrasound does not provide a benefit in the follow-up of patients with early RA.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Effect of tapered versus stable treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors on disease flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial

Objectives Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year.Methods This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population.Results Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group.Conclusion In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: An expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

Background: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach. Objectives: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. Methods: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards. Results: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided. Conclusions: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness

Workforce requirements in rheumatology: a systematic literature review informing the development of a workforce prediction risk of bias tool and the EULAR points to consider

Objective: To summarise the available information on physician workforce modelling, to develop a rheumatology workforce prediction risk of bias tool and to apply it to existing studies in rheumatology. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed in key electronic databases (1946–2017) comprising an update of an SLR in rheumatology and a hierarchical SLR in other medical fields. Data on the type of workforce prediction models and the factors considered in the models were extracted. Key general as well as specific need/demand and supply factors for workforce calculation in rheumatology were identified. The workforce prediction risk of bias tool was developed and applied to existing workforce studies in rheumatology. Results: In total, 14 studies in rheumatology and 10 studies in other medical fields were included. Studies used a variety of prediction models based on a heterogeneous set of need/demand and/or supply factors. Only two studies attempted empirical validation of the prediction quality of the model. Based on evidence and consensus, the newly developed risk of bias tool includes 21 factors (general, need/demand and supply). The majority of studies revealed high or moderate risk of bias for most of the factors. Conclusions: The existing evidence on workforce prediction in rheumatology is scarce, heterogeneous and at moderate or high risk of bias. The new risk of bias tool should enable future evaluation of workforce prediction studies. This review informs the European League Against Rheumatism points to consider for the conduction of workforce requirement studies in rheumatology

Effect of half-dose vs stable-dose conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on disease flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: the ARCTIC REWIND randomized clinical trial

This randomized trial compares the effects of half-dose conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) vs stable-dose csDMARDs on the risk of flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission.Importance Sustained remission has become an achievable goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but how to best treat patients in clinical remission remains unclear. Objective To assess the effect of tapering of csDMARDs, compared with continuing csDMARDs without tapering, on the risk of flares in patients with RA in sustained remission. Design, Setting, and Participants ARCTIC REWIND was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label noninferiority study conducted in 10 Norwegian hospital-based rheumatology practices. A total of 160 patients with RA in remission for 12 months who were receiving stable csDMARD therapy were enrolled between June 2013 and June 2018, and the final visit occurred in June 2019. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to half-dose csDMARDs (n = 80) or stable-dose csDMARDs (n = 80). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a disease flare between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) greater than 1.6 (threshold for RA remission), an increase in DAS score of 0.6 units or more, and at least 2 swollen joints. A disease flare could also be recorded if both the patient and investigator agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. A risk difference of 20% was defined as the noninferiority margin. Results Of 160 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [11.9] years; 66% female), 156 received the allocated therapy, of which 155 without any major protocol violations were included in the primary analysis population (77 receiving half-dose and 78 receiving stable-dose csDMARDs). Flare occurred in 19 patients (25%) in the half-dose csDMARD group compared with 5 (6%) in the stable-dose csDMARD group (risk difference, 18% [95% CI, 7%-29%]). Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (44%) in the half-dose group and 42 (54%) in the stable-dose group, none leading to study discontinuation. No deaths occurred. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with RA in remission taking csDMARD therapy, treatment with half-dose vs stable-dose csDMARDs did not demonstrate noninferiority for the percentage of patients with disease flares over 12 months, and there were significantly fewer flares in the stable-dose group. These findings do not support treatment with half-dose therapy.Question In patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), is reducing the csDMARDs to half dose noninferior to stable csDMARD dosage for the outcome of rheumatoid arthritis flares? Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 160 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission taking csDMARD therapy, treatment with half-dose vs stable-dose csDMARDs resulted in disease flares in 25% vs 6% over 12 months; this did not meet the noninferiority criterion of a 20% difference. There were significantly fewer patients with flares in the stable-dose group. Meaning These findings do not support the use of half-dose treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission taking csDMARDs.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Updated consensus statement on the use of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background Since initial approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rituximab has been evaluated in clinical trials involving various populations with RA. Information has also been gathered from registries. This report therefore updates the 2007 consensus document on the use of rituximab in the treatment of RA. Methods Preparation of this new document involved many international experts experienced in the treatment of RA. Following a meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify all relevant data. Data were then interrogated by a drafting committee, with subsequent review and discussion by a wider expert committee leading to the formulation of an updated consensus statement. These committees also included patients with RA. Results The new statement covers wide-ranging issues including the use of rituximab in earlier RA and impact on structural progression, and aspects particularly pertinent to rituximab such as co-medication, optimal dosage regimens, repeat treatment cycles and how to manage non-response. Biological therapy following rituximab usage is also addressed, and safety concerns including appropriate screening for hepatitis, immunoglobulin levels and infection risk. This consensus statement will support clinicians and inform patients when using B-cell depletion in the management of RA, providing up-to-date information and highlighting areas for further research. Conclusion New therapeutic strategies and treatment options for RA, a chronic destructive and disabling disease, have expanded over recent years. These have been summarised in general strategic suggestions and specific management recommendations, emphasising the importance of expedient disease-modifying antirheumatic drug implementation and tight disease control. This consensus statement is in line with these fundamental principles of management