Search

Objectives: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is a pandemic with regional outbreaks, including in industrialized countries. HEV infection is usually self-limiting but can progress to chronic hepatitis E in transplant recipients and HIV-infected patients. Whether other immunocompromised hosts, including rheumatology and internal medicine patients, are at risk of developing chronic HEV infection is unclear. Methods: We conducted a retrospective European multicenter cohort study involving 21 rheumatology and internal medicine patients with HEV infection between April 2014 and April 2016. The underlying diseases included rheumatoid arthritis (n = 5), psoriatic arthritis (n = 4), other variants of chronic arthritis (n = 4), primary immunodeficiency (n = 3), systemic granulomatosis (n = 2), lupus erythematosus (n = 1), Erdheim&ndash, Chester disease (n = 1), and retroperitoneal fibrosis (n = 1). Results: HEV infection lasting longer than 3 months was observed in seven (33%) patients, including two (40%) patients with rheumatoid arthritis, three (100%) patients with primary immunodeficiency, one (100%) patient with retroperitoneal fibrosis and one (100%) patient with systemic granulomatosis. Patients with HEV infection lasting longer than 3 months were treated with methotrexate without corticosteroids (n = 2), mycophenolate mofetil/prednisone (n = 1), and sirolimus/prednisone (n = 1). Overall, 8/21 (38%) and 11/21 (52%) patients cleared HEV with and without ribavirin treatment, respectively. One patient experienced an HEV relapse after initially successful ribavirin therapy. One patient (5%) was lost to follow-up, and no patients died from hepatic complications. Conclusion: Rheumatology and internal medicine patients, including patients treated with methotrexate without corticosteroids, are at risk of developing chronic HEV infection. Rheumatology and internal medicine patients with abnormal liver tests should be screened for HEV infection.

International audience; OBJECTIVE: To update French Society for Rheumatology guidelines regarding the use of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) antagonists for treating patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: We used the method recommended by Shekelle et al. to update the original recommendations: a limited group of experts selected the items that required updating, the relevant literature was critically appraised, and the experts developed new wording for the recommendations, which was then subjected to internal and external validation. As with the original recommendations, three topics were addressed, namely, indications of TNFalpha antagonist therapy, treatment initiation, and treatment adjustment and follow-up. RESULTS: Four criteria should be used to evaluate the indication of TNFalpha antagonist therapy. First, the patient must have a definitive diagnosis of AS or PsA. Thus, patients with AS must meet modified New York criteria or exhibit characteristic involvement of the sacroiliac joints, spine, or peripheral sites documented by radiographs or computed tomography (structural damage) or by magnetic resonance imaging (inflammation). Patients with PsA must meet validated criteria such as the Moll and Wright or CASPAR criteria. The second criterion is active disease for more than 1month, with a BASDAI >or=4 in patients with predominantly axial disease or a tender/swollen joint count >or=3, and with a physician assessment of disease activity of >or=4/10. The third criterion is failure of at least three non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with axial disease or of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy (methotrexate, salazopyrine, or leflunomide) in patients with peripheral disease. Fourth, the patient must be free of contraindications to TNFalpha antagonist therapy. Four recommendations pertain to the initiation of TNFalpha antagonist therapy: a workup should be performed prior to treatment initiation; there is no evidence that one TNFalpha antagonist is more effective than the others, so decisions about drug selection should be shared with the patient and guided by available safety data and the patient's profile; there is no proof that greater effectiveness can be achieved by routinely combining a conventional DMARD; and patients should receive regular standardized follow-up. The last four recommendations deal with adjusting TNFalpha antagonist therapy: the treatment objective is a 2-point or greater improvement in the BASDAI in patients with axial disease and a 30% or greater improvement in the tender/swollen joint counts in patients with peripheral disease; there is no evidence to support the introduction of DMARD therapy in non-responders, who can be switched to another TNFalpha antagonist or, when on infliximab, given higher dosages or more closely spaced injections; patients who fail to tolerate one TNFalpha antagonist can be switched to another TNFalpha antagonist if allowed by the nature of the adverse event; and when a remission is achieved, reduction or discontinuation of concomitant anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered, followed in the event of a prolonged remission by a reduction in the dosage of the TNFalpha antagonist.

International audience; Given the large amount of medical literature of varying methodological quality, care must be taken when translating the results of randomised controlled trials into clinical practice. To assist in this translation process, we provide a method that involves answering three main questions: 'Can I trust the results?' 'How do I understand the results?' and 'To whom do the results apply?' To answer the first question, we describe important items that help in judging the reliability of the findings. For the second question, we address the clinical and statistical significance of results by looking at the size and precision of the effect. Finally, we raise the issue of external validity and of reporting adverse effects to determine which patients may best benefit from the new intervention.

International audience; OBJECTIVES: To develop recommendations for TNFalpha antagonist therapy in patients with spondyloarthropathies. METHODS: The Delphi consensus procedure was used to select questions, to which evidence-based answers were sought in the literature. Expert opinion was used when needed to estimate the risks and benefits of TNFalpha antagonists. TNFalpha antagonists exert potent antiinflammatory effects but fail to provide a definitive cure. RESULTS: Recommendations were developed for patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The following criteria for TNFalpha antagonist therapy were selected: definitive diagnosis of AS or PsA, active disease for at least 4 consecutive weeks documented during two physician visits, overall physician's assessment of disease activity>/=4/10 and BASDAI>/=4/10 in axial disease or at least three tender and swollen joints in peripheral disease, failure to respond adequately to at least three nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs given in optimal dosages for at least 3 months in axial disease or at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine) for at least 4 months, with local glucocorticoid injections if appropriate, in peripheral disease. Effectiveness and safety should be evaluated by a rheumatologist. The frequency of monitoring depends on the drug. Lack of effectiveness should be defined as inadequate improvement after 6-12 weeks, with a less than two-point decrease in the BASDAI in axial disease or a less than 30% decrease in the tender and swollen joint counts in peripheral disease. CONCLUSION: These clinical practice recommendations should help rheumatologists in their everyday decisions regarding the use of TNFalpha antagonist therapy in patients with AS or PsA.

OBJECTIVES: Despite availability of efficacious treatments, unmet needs still exist, preventing optimal and comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evolving the management of RA (eRA) is a European-wide educational initiative aiming to support improved patient care through practical and educational tools addressing specific unmet needs. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (17 members, 12 countries) identified unmet needs within the management of RA and prioritised those with the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Practical educational tools addressing priority needs were then developed for dissemination and implementation by the rheumatology community across Europe. RESULTS: Five areas of priority need were identified: increasing early recognition of RA and treatment initiation; treating RA to target; optimal, holistic approach to selection of treatment strategy, including shared decision-making; improving identification and management of comorbidities; and non-pharmacological patient management. A suite of 14 eRA tools included educational slides, best-practice guidance, self‑assessment questionnaires, clinical checklists, a multidisciplinary team training exercise, an interactive patient infographic, and case scenarios. By April 2020, rheumatology professionals in 17 countries had been actively engaged in the eRA programme; in 11 countries, eRA tools were selected by national leaders in rheumatology and translated for local dissemination. A web platform, with country-specific pages, was developed to support access to the translated tools (https://www.evolvingthemanagementofra.com/). CONCLUSIONS: The eRA programme supports comprehensive management of RA across Europe through development and dissemination of practical educational tools. The eRA tools address priority needs and are available free of charge to the rheumatology community.