Interpretation of DAS28 and its components in the assessment of inflammatory and non-inflammatory aspects of rheumatoid arthritis

Background: DAS28 is interpreted as the inflammatory disease activity of RA. Non-inflammatory pain mechanisms can confound assessment. We aimed to examine the use of DAS28 components or DAS28-derived measures that have been published as indices of non-inflammatory pain mechanisms, to inform interpretation of disease activity. Methods: Data were used from multiple observational epidemiology studies of people with RA. Statistical characteristics of DAS28 components and derived indices were assessed using baseline and follow up data from British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry participants [1] commencing anti-TNF therapy (n = 10813), or [2] changing between non-biologic DMARDs (n=2992), [3] Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network participants (n=813), and [4] participants in a cross-sectional study exploring fibromyalgia and pain thresholds (n=45). Repeatability was tested in 34 patients with active RA. Derived indices were the proportion of DAS28 attributable to patient-reported components (DAS28-P), tender-swollen difference and tender:swollen ratio. Pressure pain detection threshold (PPT) was used as an index of pain sensitisation. Results: DAS28, tender joint count, visual analogue scale, DAS28-P, tender-swollen difference and tender:swollen ratio were more strongly associated with pain, PPT and fibromyalgia status than were swollen joint count or erythrocyte sedimentation rate. DAS28-P, tender-swollen difference and tender:swollen ratio better predicted pain over 1 year than did DAS28 or its individual components. Conclusions: DAS28 is strongly associated both with inflammation and with patient-reported outcomes. DAS28-derived indices such as tender-swollen difference are associated with non-inflammatory pain mechanisms, can predict future pain and should inform how DAS28 is interpreted as an index of inflammatory disease activity in RA

Symptom complexes in patients with seropositive arthralgia and in patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative exploration of symptom development

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore symptoms and symptom development during the earliest phases of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with seropositive arthralgia and patients newly diagnosed with RA

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to—or adding—another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies

How to treat undifferentiated arthritis today or tomorrow?: A consideration of treatment recommendations in light of current evidence

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) have clinically apparent inflammatory arthritis but no evident diagnosis or classification. Considering UA as a definition 'per exclusionem' implies that the population designated by this term is affected by changes in the way other diseases, eg, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), are classified or diagnosed. Current treatment recommendations for UA are largely similar to recommendations for RA. The recommendations are based on the idea that UA is an early stage of RA and on literature generated in the 2000s before the development of the 2010 classification criteria for RA. However, conventional UA (so-called '1987-UA') is presumably different than contemporary UA ('2010-UA'). Strikingly, there are no randomised placebo-controlled trials done on '2010-UA,' and this poses questions on whether the recommendations for UA are still valid. In this absence, we assume that treatment recommendations from '1987-UA' can be extrapolated to '2010-UA' if (1) essential patient characteristics are the same, (2) long-term outcomes are similar, (3) prognostic factors are largely the same, and (4) there are indications from research other than placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment in 2010-UA is effective. We evaluate these requirements one by one based on the literature on 2010-UA. This reveals that 2010-UA is milder in initial presentation and disease outcomes than 1987-UA. Today's UA population is >95% anticitrullinated protein antibody-negative, presents with mono- or oligoarthritis, frequently achieves spontaneous remission, and rarely progresses to RA. We suggest that 2010-UA is a distinct patient group within the early arthritis spectrum, requiring additional research, after which recommendations may need to be updated.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Disease activity level, remission and response in established rheumatoid arthritis: Performance of various criteria sets in an observational cohort, treated with anti-TNF agents

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most composite indices of disease activity and response criteria in RA have been validated and compared in clinical trials rather than routine care. We therefore wanted to compare the performance of the DAS28, SDAI and CDAI activity indices, their activity states, their response criteria, and also compare with the ACR response criteria in an observational clinical setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Agreement between the criteria sets was investigated using κ statistics in a non-randomized cohort of 1789 RA patients from southern Sweden, starting their first course of anti-TNF-treatment. Mean disease duration was 12 years. Completer analysis was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Agreement between high, moderate and low activity states was moderate or substantial, with κ = 0.5 or better for all criteria. Agreement between SDAI and CDAI disease states was > 90% in these categories with κ > 0.8. DAS28 original and modified cut point remission had good agreement (κ = 0.91). Agreement between responses was substantial at the overall/ACR20 level (about 95%, κ = 0.7 or better) for all criteria. By contrast, agreement was poor between moderate and high level responses.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Disease activity states according to the various indices perform similarly and show substantial agreement at all levels except remission. Agreement between SDAI and CDAI states is excellent. Response criteria, applied at the individual patient level, are hard to interpret and show poor agreement, except at the lowest level of response. Thus, they should not be applied uncritically in clinical practice.</p

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout: integrating systematic literature review and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e initiative

We aimed to develop evidence-based multinational recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout. Using a formal voting process, a panel of 78 international rheumatologists developed 10 key clinical questions pertinent to the diagnosis and management of gout. Each question was investigated with a systematic literature review. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and abstracts from 2010-2011 European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology meetings were searched in each review. Relevant studies were independently reviewed by two individuals for data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment. Using this evidence, rheumatologists from 14 countries (Europe, South America and Australasia) developed national recommendations. After rounds of discussion and voting, multinational recommendations were formulated. Each recommendation was graded according to the level of evidence. Agreement and potential impact on clinical practice were assessed. Combining evidence and clinical expertise, 10 recommendations were produced. One recommendation referred to the diagnosis of gout, two referred to cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, six focused on different aspects of the management of gout (including drug treatment and monitoring), and the last recommendation referred to the management of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. the level of agreement with the recommendations ranged from 8.1 to 9.2 (mean 8.7) on a 1-10 scale, with 10 representing full agreement. Ten recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout were established. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 14 countries, enhancing their utility in clinical practice.AbbVieAustralian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)Hosp Gen Univ Elda, Dept Reumatol, Elda 03600, SpainHosp Gen Univ Alicante, Dept Reumatol, Alicante, SpainUniv Camilo Jose Cela, Fac Ciencias Salud, Madrid, SpainUniv British Columbia, Div Rheumatol, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, CanadaRoyal Melbourne Hosp, Parkville, Vic 3050, AustraliaUniv Hosp Southampton NHS Fdn Trust, Southampton, Hants, EnglandNIHR Wellcome Trust Clin Res Facil, Southampton, Hants, EnglandCtr Hosp Univ Liege, Liege, BelgiumMaastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Internal Med Rheumatol, Maastricht, NetherlandsAtrium Med Ctr, Heerlen, NetherlandsUniv Toronto, Div Rheumatol, Toronto, ON, CanadaRepatriat Gen Hosp, Rheumatol Res Unit, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaFlinders Univ S Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, AustraliaMed Univ Vienna, Dept Internal Med 3, Div Rheumatol, Vienna, AustriaUniv Toronto, Dept Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, CanadaMt Sinai Hosp, Univ Hlth Network, Toronto Gen Res Inst, Div Clin Decis Making & Hlth Care, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, CanadaCabrini Hosp, Monash Dept Clin Epidemiol, Malvern, Vic, AustraliaMonash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Malvern, Vic, AustraliaUniv Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Clin Immunol & Rheumatol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, NetherlandsUniv Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Rheumatol & Clin Immunol, Utrecht, NetherlandsUniv Nova Lisboa, Fac Ciencias Med, CEDOC, P-1200 Lisbon, PortugalEPE Hosp Egas Moniz, CHLO, Dept Rheumatol, Lisbon, PortugalHosp Gen Mexico City, Rheumatol Unit, Mexico City, DF, MexicoKarolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Rheumatol, Stockholm, SwedenKarolinska Inst, Stockholm, SwedenGhent Univ Hosp, Dept Rheumatol, Ghent, BelgiumUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div Rheumatol, São Paulo, BrazilSt Georges Healthcare NHS Trust, Dept Rheumatol, London, EnglandState Hosp Stockerau, Ctr Rheumatol, Lower Austria, Stockerau, AustriaUniv Pavia, IRCCS Policlin S Matteo, Cattedra Reumatol, I-27100 Pavia, ItalyUniv Giessen, Kerckhoff Klin, Dept Rheumatol & Clin Immunol, Bad Nauheim, GermanyCopenhagen Univ Hosp, Ctr Rheumatol & Spine Dis, Copenhagen Ctr Arthrit Res, Glostrup, DenmarkMenzies Res Inst Tasmania, Hobart, Tas, AustraliaColumbia Univ, Med Ctr, New York, NY USALeiden Univ, Med Ctr, Leiden, NetherlandsUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div Rheumatol, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Treating axial spondyloarthritis and peripheral spondyloarthritis, especially psoriatic arthritis, to target: 2017 update of recommendations by an international task force

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field

The Scottish Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (SERA) Study:an inception cohort and biobank

Background: The Scottish Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (SERA) study is an inception cohort of rheumatoid (RA) and undifferentiated arthritis (UA) patients that aims to provide a contemporary description of phenotype and outcome and facilitate discovery of phenotypic and prognostic biomarkers Methods: Demographic and clinical outcome data are collected from newly diagnosed RA/UA patients every 6 months from around Scotland. Health service utilization data is acquired from Information Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland. Plain radiographs of hands and feet are collected at baseline and 12 months. Additional samples of whole blood, plasma, serum and filtered urine are collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months Results: Results are available for 1073 patients; at baseline, 76 % were classified as RA and 24 % as UA. Median time from onset to first review was 163 days (IQR97-323). Methotrexate was first-line DMARD for 75 % patients. Disease activity, functional ability and health-related quality of life improved significantly between baseline and 24 months, however the proportion in any employment fell (51 to 38 %, p = 0.0005). 24 % patients reported symptoms of anxiety and/or depression at baseline. 35/391 (9 %) patients exhibited rapid radiographic progression after 12 months. The SERA Biobank has accrued 60,612 samples Conclusions: In routine care, newly diagnosed RA/UA patients experience significant improvements in disease activity, functional ability and health-related quality of life but have high rates of psychiatric symptoms and declining employment rates. The co-existence of a multi-domain description of phenotype and a comprehensive biobank will facilitate multi-platform translational research to identify predictive markers of phenotype and prognosis

Baseline JAK phosphorylation profile of peripheral blood leukocytes, studied by whole blood phosphospecific flow cytometry, is associated with 1-year treatment response in early rheumatoid arthritis

Background: We found recently that baseline signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 phosphorylation in peripheral blood CD4(+) T cells of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with treatment response to synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This prompted us to study the baseline phosphorylation profiles of Janus kinases (JAKs) in blood leukocytes with respect to treatment response in early RA. Methods: Thirty-five DMARD-naive patients with early RA provided blood samples for whole blood flow cytometric determination of phosphorylation of JAKs in CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells, CD19(+) B cells, and CD14(+) monocytes. Treatment response was determined after 1 year of treatment with synthetic DMARDs, with remission defined as absence of tender and swollen joints and normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Exact logistic regression was used to investigate the association of baseline variables with treatment response. Ninety-five percent CIs of means were estimated by bias-corrected bootstrapping. Results: High JAK3 phosphorylation in CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells, CD19(+) B cells, and CD14(+) monocytes and low JAK2 phosphorylation in CD14(+) monocytes were significantly associated with remission following treatment with synthetic DMARDs. Conclusions: Baseline JAK phosphorylation profile in peripheral blood leukocytes may provide a means to predict treatment response achieved by synthetic DMARDs among patients with early RA.Peer reviewe