2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis

This first update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations on the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is based on the original paper, a systematic review of existing recommendations and the literature since 2005 and the discussion and agreement among 21 international experts, 2 patients and 2 physiotherapists in a meeting in February 2010. Each original bullet point was discussed in detail and reworded if necessary. Decisions on new recommendations were made — if necessary after voting. The strength of the recommendations (SOR) was scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale after the meeting by email. These recommendations apply to patients of all ages that fulfill the modified NY criteria for AS, independent of extra-articular manifestations, and they take into account all drug and non-drug interventions related to AS. Four overarching principles were introduced, implying that one bullet has been moved to this section. There are now 11 bullet points including 2 new ones, one related to extra-articular manifestations and one to changes in the disease course. With a mean score of 9.1 (range 8-10) the SOR was generally very good

Comparison of recommendations for the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in ankylosing spondylitis in 23 countries worldwide

Objective. To give an overview of the recommendations for the use of anti-TNF-α therapy in AS in 23 countries worldwide Methods. The recommendations were collected, translated and a summary was checked by Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) members from the respective countries. The recommendations were compared with the ASAS recommendations (2006) on three aspects: patient selection for initiation of treatment (diagnosis, disease activity, previous treatment and contraindications), assessment of disease and assessment of response. Results. The majority of the recommendations are similar to the ASAS recommendation with regard to patient selection, assessment of disease and treatment response. Additional objective assessments of disease activity are required in eight countries, leading to a more strict indication to start anti-TNF-α therapy. Conclusion. Most national recommendations follow the international ASAS recommendations, suggesting that the latter are widely implemented. This might contribute to comparable access with anti-TNF-α treatment across countries. This article shows that general consensus exists about the use of anti-TNF-α therapy in AS across the world, although some countries require additional objective signs of inflammation and/or more pre-treatment, which limits access

2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative

Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. Methods A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in three phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease-this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct 'RA'. Results In the new criteria set, classification as 'definite RA' is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least one joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis better explaining the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in four domains: number and site of involved joints (range 0-5), serological abnormality (range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (range 0-1) and symptom duration (two levels; range 0-1). Conclusion This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimise the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct 'RA'.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Classification Criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis Phase 2 Methodological Report

Objective. The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism have developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of Phase 2 of the development process was to achieve expert consensus on the clinical and laboratory variables that should contribute to the final criteria set. Methods. Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of "developing RA," complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis. Results. The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach. Conclusion. The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set