Desperately looking for the right target in osteoarthritis: the anti-IL-1 strategy

Blocking IL-1 in patients with knee osteoarthritis is an attractive strategy. Cohen and colleagues report a randomised, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose trial using a monoclonal antibody blocking IL-1 type 1 receptor. They failed to show any positive results in terms of evolution of pain for up to 12 weeks, in line with the former trials using intraarticular injections of IL-1 receptor antagonist. A trend was observed, however, in a subgroup of patients with high level of pain at baseline. Although these data may suggest cessation of IL-1 therapy in osteoarthritis, other methods such as limited intraarticular anti-IL-1 delivery should still be considered

Effect of C282Y genotype on self-reported musculoskeletal complications in hereditary hemochromatosis

Objective Arthropathy that mimics osteoarthritis (OA) and osteoporosis (OP) is considered a complication of hereditary hemochromatosis (HH). We have limited data comparing OA and OP prevalence among HH patients with different hemochromatosis type 1 (HFE) genotypes. We investigated the prevalence of OA and OP in patients with HH by C282Y homozygosity and compound heterozygosity (C282Y/H63D) genotype. Methods A total of 306 patients with HH completed a questionnaire. Clinical and demographic characteristics and presence of OA, OP and related complications were compared by genotype, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), current smoking and menopausal status. Results In total, 266 of the 306 patients (87%) were homozygous for C282Y, and 40 (13%) were compound heterozygous. The 2 groups did not differ by median age [60 (interquartile range [IQR] 53 to 68) vs. 61 (55 to 67) years, P=0.8], sex (female: 48.8% vs. 37.5%, P=0.18) or current smoking habits (12.4% vs. 10%, P=0.3). As compared with compound heterozygous patients, C282Y homozygous patients had higher median serum ferritin concentration at diagnosis [1090 (IQR 610 to 2210) vs. 603 (362 to 950) mu g/L, P<0.001], higher median transferrin saturation [80% (IQR 66 to 91%) vs. 63% (55 to 72%), P<0.001]) and lower median BMI [24.8 (22.1 to 26.9) vs. 26.2 (23.5 to 30.3) kg/m2, P<0.003]. The overall prevalence of self-reported OA was significantly higher with C282Y homozygosity than compound heterozygosity (53.4% vs. 32.5%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.4 [95% confidence interval 1.2-5.0]), as was self-reported OP (25.6% vs. 7.5%; aOR 3.5 [1.1-12.1]). Conclusion Patients with C282Y homozygosity may be at increased risk of musculoskeletal complications of HH.Association Rhumatisme et Travail (Centre Viggo Petersen, Hospital Lariboisiere, Paris

Gender differences in perceptions of psoriatic arthritis disease impact, management, and physician interactions: results from a global patient survey

Introduction: We evaluated the impact of gender on disease severity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), treatment management, and patient–healthcare professional (HCP) interactions from the perspectives of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: Data were collected from a global online patient survey conducted by The Harris Poll (November 2, 2017 to March 12, 2018). Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, with a self-reported diagnosis of PsA for > 1 year, had visited a rheumatologist/dermatologist in the past 12 months, and had reported previously using ≥ 1 conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Data were stratified by gender and analyzed descriptively, inferentially by binomial (chi-square) tests, and by multivariate logistic regression models. Results: Data from 1286 patients who participated were included: 52% were female, 48% were male. Varying perceptions of disease severity between males and females were indicated by differences in symptoms leading to a diagnosis of PsA, and in symptoms reported despite treatment; more females than males reported joint tenderness, skin patches/plaques, and enthesitis. More females than males reported a major/moderate impact of PsA on their physical activity and emotional/mental well-being. Reasons for switching medication differed between genders, with more females switching because they perceived their medication to not be effective enough related to their joint symptoms. More females than males were very satisfied with their communication with their rheumatologist and were more likely to discuss the impact of PsA on their daily lives, their treatment satisfaction, and treatment goals with their rheumatologist. Conclusions:Patients’ perceptions of the impact of PsA on HRQoL, treatment management, and interactions with HCPs varied between males and females. More females than males reported major/moderate physical and emotional impacts of PsA. When treating patients, it is important for HCPs to consider the potential impact of gender on patients’ experience of PsA and its symptoms. Graphical plain language summary available for this article

A JAK inhibitor for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: the baricitinib experience

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheuma-toid arthritis (RA) and provides improvements in clinical signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes. Currently, baricitinib is approved for treating RA in more than 75 countries. In sever-al pivotal Phase II and III RA trials (RA-BALANCE, RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, RA-BUILD, RA-BEACON, RA-BEYOND), up to seven years of baricitinib treatment was well tolerated and provided rapid and sustained efficacy, which was confirmed in real-world settings. Safety sig-nals for another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, have emerged, as observed in the post-marketing Phase IIIb/IV trial Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance; safety signals were subsequently highlighted in a retrospective study of baricitinib and consequently new recom-mendations and warnings and precautions for all JAK inhibitors have been issued. Ongoing studies to further characterise and clarify the benefit:risk of JAK inhibitors include registries and controlled trials. This capstone review summarises clinical and real-world data outlining the benefit:risk profile of baricitinib, confirming that the improved disease activity and physical function of patients with RA treated with this JAK inhibitor observed in clinical trials is trans-lated into effectiveness in clinical practice, with a low rate of discontinuations

A JAK inhibitor for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: The Baricitinib Experience

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provides improvements in clinical signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes. Currently, baricitinib is approved for treating RA in more than 75 countries. In several pivotal Phase II and III RA trials (RA-BALANCE, RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, RA-BUILD, RA-BEACON, RA-BEYOND), up to seven years of baricitinib treatment was well tolerated and provided rapid and sustained efficacy, which was confirmed in real-world settings. Safety signals for another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, have emerged, as observed in the post-marketing Phase IIIb/IV trial Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance; safety signals were subsequently highlighted in a retrospective study of baricitinib and consequently new recommendations and warnings and precautions for all JAK inhibitors have been issued. Ongoing studies to further characterise and clarify the benefit:risk of JAK inhibitors include registries and controlled trials. This capstone review summarises clinical and real-world data outlining the benefit:risk profile of baricitinib, confirming that the improved disease activity and physical function of patients with RA treated with this JAK inhibitor observed in clinical trials is translated into effectiveness in clinical practice, with a low rate of discontinuations

A 12-point recommendation framework to support advancement of the multidisciplinary care of psoriatic arthritis: a call to action

Objective Making a differential diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is not straightforward. This is partly because of its heterogeneous presentation and partly because many patients with PsA are initially diagnosed with psoriasis and treated in primary care or by dermatologists, with referral to rheumatologists being delayed. Once diagnosed, optimal disease control requires frequent specialist monitoring, adjustment or switching of therapies, and management of comorbidities and concomitant diseases, as well as attention to patients’ overall well-being. Given the breadth of expertise that diagnosis and management of PsA requires, we sought to define a collaborative, structured framework that supports the optimisation of multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA in Europe. Methods An expert panel comprising four rheumatologists, three dermatologists, two specialist nurses and one psychologist–from Spain, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy–met face-to-face to take part in a modified Delphi exercise. Results The result of this exercise is a set of recommendations that are based on combining published evidence with the panel's extensive clinical experience. Recommendations can be implemented in a number of ways, but the central call-to-action of this framework is the need for improved collaboration between dermatologists (or primary care physicians) and rheumatologists. This could occur in a variety of different formats: standard referral pathways, multidisciplinary physician meetings to discuss patient cases, or ‘one stop’, combined clinics. Conclusion We anticipate that when the majority of patients with PsA receive regular multidisciplinary care, improved patient outcomes will follow, although robust research is needed to explore this assumption

Online Training on Skin Cancer Diagnosis in Rheumatologists: Results from a Nationwide Randomized Web-Based Survey

International audiencePatients with inflammatory rheumatisms, such as rheumatoid arthritis, are more prone to develop skin cancers than the general population, with an additional increased incidence when receiving TNF blockers. There is therefore a need that physicians treating patients affected with inflammatory rheumatisms with TNF blockers recognize malignant skin lesions, requiring an urgent referral to the dermatologist and a potential withdrawal or modification of the immunomodulatory treatment. We aimed to demonstrate that an online training dedicated to skin tumors increase the abilities of rheumatologists to discriminate skin cancers from benign skin tumors. A nationwide randomized web-based survey involving 141 French rheumatologists was conducted. The baseline evaluation included short cases with skin lesion pictures and multiple choice questions assessing basic knowledge on skin cancers. For each case, rheumatologists had to indicate the nature of skin lesion (benign; premalignant/ malignant), their level of confidence in this diagnosis (10-points Likert scale), and the precise dermatological diagnosis among 5 propositions. Different scores were established. After randomization, only one group had access to the online formation consisting in 4 elearning modules on skin tumors, of 15 minutes each (online training group). After reevaluation, the trained and the non-trained group (control group) were compared. The primary end-point was the number of adequate diagnoses of the nature of the skin lesions. The mean number of adequate diagnosis for the benign versus premalignant/malignant nature of the lesions was higher in the online training group (13.4 vs. 11.2 points; p value <0.0001). While the other knowledge scores were also significantly higher, no statistical difference was observed on the level of self-confidence between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the online formation was effective to improve the rheumatologists' ability to diagnose skin cancer

Correction to: Intra‑articular injections of platelet‑rich plasma in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a consensus statement from French‑speaking experts.

peer reviewe

Discordant American College of Physicians and international rheumatology guidelines for gout management: consensus statement of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN).

In November 2016, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a clinical practice guideline on the management of acute and recurrent gout. This guideline differs substantially from the latest guidelines generated by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative, despite reviewing largely the same body of evidence. The Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN) convened an expert panel to review the methodology and conclusions of these four sets of guidelines and examine possible reasons for discordance between them. The G-CAN position, presented here, is that the fundamental pathophysiological knowledge underlying gout care, and evidence from clinical experience and clinical trials, supports a treat-to-target approach for gout aimed at lowering serum urate levels to below the saturation threshold at which monosodium urate crystals form. This practice, which is truly evidence-based and promotes the steady reduction in tissue urate crystal deposits, is promoted by the ACR, EULAR and 3e Initiative recommendations. By contrast, the ACP does not provide a clear recommendation for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for patients with frequent, recurrent flares or those with tophi, nor does it recommend monitoring serum urate levels of patients prescribed ULT. Results from emerging clinical trials that have gout symptoms as the primary end point are expected to resolve this debate for all clinicians in the near term future