Search

This article is a response to comments on a study that investigated the effects of low-dose glucocorticoid therapy on weight and blood pressure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The authors performed additional analyses and found that glucocorticoid-induced weight gain was limited to the first year and then stabilized. They also addressed concerns about other adverse effects associated with long-term glucocorticoid treatment, noting that recent studies challenge the notion that low-dose glucocorticoids cause cardiovascular events, osteoporosis, or death independent of disease activity. The authors also discussed the divergence in results between their pooled analysis and another trial, and addressed concerns about the handling of missing data. [Extracted from the article]

Glucocorticoids (prednisone) are essential in the treatment of RA and other autoimmune diseases. They are widely used, but treatment guidelines advise against. This viewpoint article explains why and suggests a way forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To standardize outcome reporting in clinical trials of patients with nonspecific low back pain, an international multidisciplinary panel recommended physical functioning, pain intensity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as core outcome domains. Given the lack of a consensus on measurement instruments for these 3 domains in patients with low back pain, this study aimed to generate such consensus. The measurement properties of 17 patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning, 3 for pain intensity, and 5 for HRQoL were appraised in 3 systematic reviews following the COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 207) were invited in a 2-round Delphi survey to generate consensus (≥67% agreement among participants) on which instruments to endorse. Response rates were 44% and 41%, respectively. In round 1, consensus was achieved on the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a for physical functioning (78% agreement) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity (75% agreement). No consensus was achieved on any HRQoL instrument, although the Short Form 12 (SF12) approached the consensus threshold (64% agreement). In round 2, a consensus was reached on an NRS version with a 1-week recall period (96% agreement). Various participants requested 1 free-to-use instrument per domain. Considering all issues together, recommendations on core instruments were formulated: Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a or 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, and SF12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health form for HRQoL. Further studies need to fill the evidence gaps on the measurement properties of these and other instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study included participants with early symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee and evaluated clinical, radiographic and biochemical variables in order to establish the course, prognosis and underlying mechanisms of early symptomatic osteoarthritis. A total of 1002 participants aged 45-65 years, with symptomatic OA characterized by pain of knee and/ or hip, entered the cohort in the period October 2002 to September 2005. They were included at or within 6 months of their first visit to the general practitioner for these symptoms. An overview of measures that are included in the study can be found on the website [www.check-research.com]. On the basis of their presenting symptoms, participants were divided into two groups. Participants with mild symptoms visited the research centre at years 0, 2, 5, 8 and 10 (variable visiting group) and participants with more serious symptoms visited the research centre each year (annual visiting group). After 7 years, only 105 participants (10%) had dropped out; their baseline characteristics did not differ significantly from those of other participants. CHECK is a valuable source of information on early symptomatic OA, that allows the examination of high-quality data on clinical, radiographic and biochemical variables. The CHECK steering group welcomes collaboration with national and international colleagues. Requests for collaboration or access to data can be sent to [checkreu@umcutrecht.nl]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are abundant in rheumatology and their numbers continue to increase. But which of the available measures are most important? Core outcome sets-including groups of domains and instruments for measuring them-have been defined for many rheumatic diseases, with the aim that all these outcomes should be measured in every clinical trial. The subgroup of PROs included in these core sets is, therefore, undoubtedly important. This Review summarizes the PROs included in core outcome sets developed for use in clinical trials across a wide range of rheumatic diseases. Three PROs are commonly utilized across the majority of rheumatic conditions: pain, physical functioning and the patient global assessment of disease activity. However, additional research is needed to fully understand the role of the patient global assessment of disease activity, to distinguish specific domains within the broad concept of health-related quality of life, and to work towards consensus on the choice between generic and disease-specific instruments in various contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lack of standardization of outcome measures limits the usefulness of clinical trial evidence to inform health care decisions. This can be addressed by agreeing on a minimum core set of outcome measures per health condition, containing measures relevant to patients and decision makers. Since 1992, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets for many rheumatologic conditions, actively involving patients since 2002. Its expanding scope required an explicit formulation of its underlying conceptual framework and process. Methods: Literature searches and iterative consensus process (surveys and group meetings) of stakeholders including patients, health professionals, and methodologists within and outside rheumatology. Results: To comprehensively sample patient-centered and intervention-specific outcomes, a framework emerged that comprises three core ''Areas,'' namely Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations; and one strongly recommended Resource Use. Through literature review and consensus process, core set development for any specific health condition starts by identifying at least one core ''Domain'' within each of the Areas to formulate the ''Core Domain Set.'' Next, at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core Domain is identified to formulate a ''Core Outcome Measurement Set.'' Each instrument must prove to be truthful (valid), discriminative, and feasible. In 2012, 96% of the voting participants (n5125) at the OMERACT 11 consensus conference endorsed this model and process. Conclusion: The OMERACT Filter 2.0 explicitly describes a comprehensive conceptual framework and a recommended process to develop core outcome measurement sets for rheumatology likely to be useful as a template in other areas of health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis exposed to glucocorticoids. Methods: Retrospective analysis of exposure to glucocorticoids in a prospective cohort of 353 patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed from June 2001 up to November 2011 for incident cardiovascular disease in a hospital-based outpatient cohort in the Netherlands. Hazard ratios with 95%-confidence intervals were calculated for the association between different types of exposure to glucocorticoids and incident cardiovascular disease. Associations were adjusted for demographics, cardiovascular risk factors and disease related parameters. Results: Recent and current exposure to glucocorticoids were associated with incident cardiovascular disease, as was a longer duration of exposure and cumulative exposure to glucocorticoids. Adjustment for disease activity and severity negated the association. Conclusion: In observational studies the finding of incident cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis exposed to glucocorticoids is strongly confounded by indication due to high disease activity. The adverse cardiovascular effects of glucocorticoids might be balanced by positive effects working through inflammation control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The development and application of standardised sets of outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical trials have the potential to increase the efficiency and value of research. One of the most notable of the current outcome sets began nearly 20 years ago: the World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials, originating from the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) Initiative. This study assesses the use of this core outcome set by randomised trials in rheumatology. Methods An observational review was carried out of 350 randomised trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis identified through the The Cochrane Library (up to and including September 2012 issue). Reports of these trials were evaluated to determine whether or not there were trends in the proportion of trials reporting on the full set of core outcomes over time. Researchers who conducted trials after the publication of the core set were contacted to assess their awareness of it and to collect reasons for non-inclusion of the full core set of outcomes in the study. Results Since the introduction of the core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis, the consistency of measurement of the core set of outcomes has improved, although variation in the choice of measurement instrument remains. The majority of trialists who responded said that they would consider using the core outcome set in the design of a new trial. Conclusions This observational review suggests that a higher percentage of trialists conducting trials in rheumatoid arthritis are now measuring the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set. Core outcome sets have the potential to improve the evidence base for health care, but consideration must be given to the methods for disseminating their availability amongst the relevant communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on a data collection methodology involving the Short Form-36 questionnaire (SF-36) in medical care and discusses an article published in the periodical which suggests using radar graphs also called spydergrams for plotting result of the questionnaire. It informs that spydergraph graphically depicts the data in two dimensions on a flat surface and analyzes its difficulties in quantitative interpretation.

Abstract: Background: In the setting of multiple remission and relapse periods of a chronic disease, simple endpoint analysis does not fully capture all relevant information, and we need methods to additionally describe both the duration of remission as well as the interruptions in this desired state. Probably the two-state continuous Markov process model comprises the best mathematical approach to data analysis. However, this approach is complex and not intuitive to clinicians. In this paper we propose a simple scoring system and a graph that can enhance the information about the remission experience in a trial or cohort study. Methods: The continuity rewarded (‘ConRew’) score sums up periods in remission, and rewards extended periods by placing more value on uninterrupted periods than on interrupted periods. The ‘patient vector graph’ attempts to plot each patient''s remission experience over time as a horizontal line (the ‘vector’) that is visible when the patient is in remission, but interrupted whenever relapse occurs. In this way a pattern is formed that conveys the number of patients experiencing remission, their individual total duration and interruptions, and time when these occur. Results: In a dataset of a randomized trial in early rheumatoid arthritis, the graph clearly showed both early and late benefit of one group over the other. The scoring system demonstrated the main benefit was in the number of remission periods, not in their ‘uninterruptedness’. Conclusion: Both approaches proved feasible and added extra information. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: To develop a simple system to assess benefit and harm of treatment on a single scale. Harm and benefit signals from trials need to be placed in the proper perspective to decide on the value of a treatment. Several systems have been developed for assessment, but few attempt to incorporate both benefit and risk in the same metric while retaining enough simplicity to aid patients and clinicians in their decision making. Study Design and Setting: We designed a very simple 3×3 table (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology [OMERACT] 3×3) that comprises three ranks for both beneficial and harm outcomes: for benefit, these are “none,” “substantial,” and “(near) remission”; for harm, these are “none,” “severe,” and “(near) death.” Patients are ranked both for benefit and harm and subsequently counted in a 3×3 table. Results: The system was feasible when applied to one trial dataset (patient-level information) and a meta-analysis. To become applicable as a tool, several issues need to be resolved in further development, especially the definitions and cutoffs for the ranks. Conclusion: A simple 3×3 table to rank both benefit and harm outcomes is feasible. For rheumatology this will be further developed in the context of the OMERACT initiative. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Following a newly developed concept of health, this viewpoint suggests that the concept of frailty can usefully be defined as: the weakening of health, i.e. the resilience or capacity to cope, and to maintain and restore one's integrity, equilibrium, and sense of wellbeing in three domains: physical, mental, and social. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OMERACT is the acronym for an international, informally organized network initiated in 1992 aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. Chaired by an executive committee, it organizes consensus conferences in a 2-yearly cycle that circles the globe. Data driven recommendations are prepared and updated by expert working groups. Recommendations include core sets of measures for most of the major rheumatologic conditions. Since 2002 patients have been actively engaged in the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional graphs often include error bars around the group means. Regardless of what these bars depict, they are uninformative as to whether a difference between the groups is statistically significant.This article suggests plotting the null bar or null zone: that is, the range or area in which the means of the two groups fall if the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be rejected. The bar and zone are simply derived from the confidence interval around the difference, obtained from the t-test. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article discusses methodological concepts and challenges underlying the interpretation of changes in plain radiographs of the joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A series of consensus conferences (OMERACT [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology]) has resulted in the formulation and execution of a research agenda to harmonise reading and interpretation of films. This is important in the light of the increasing evidence that drugs can impact on the progression of joint damage. In these conferences, methodological issues have been divided according to applicability tenets summarised in the OMERACT Filter of Truth, Discrimination, and Feasibility. To pass the Filter, a measure must measure what it is supposed to measure (Truth), must discriminate between clinically relevant states (Discrimination) and be feasible in terms of costs and interpretability. ‘Truth’ issues include the choice of joints, the view and other technical specifications of the radiograph, such as which abnormalities to score, the level of aggregation of the information, culminating in the choice of the scoring system. ‘Discrimination’ issues include reproducibility and sensitivity to change. The current research agenda includes items such as defining a criterion for ‘no relevant progression’, comparison between time ordered and randomly ordered reading, further comparison of methods and subscores, and methodology around missing values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports a study that compared the combination of sulphasalazine, methotrexate and prednisolone with sulphasalazine alone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Background; Methods; Findings; Interpretation; Discussion; References.

Objective. The effects of a 12-week treatment with modified-release prednisone (MR-pred) on the costs of drug treatment of RA were modelled.Methods. With the results of a recent randomized trial as source data, we expressed the effect of treatment (MR-pred vs placebo) on the decrease in the proportion of RA patients meeting disease activity thresholds for reimbursement of biologic treatment.Results. The results showed 11–13% more patients on MR-pred than on placebo dropped below reimbursement thresholds for the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK. Assuming 1 year of biologics cost €15 000 and MR-pred costs €1/day, €396 are saved in each patient delaying biologic treatment by 12 weeks.Conclusion. Despite a considerably higher cost than conventional prednisone, MR-pred is a cost-effective option for RA patients not on glucocorticoids who are eligible for therapy with biologic agents. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The American College of Rheumatology recently published a list of five strategies (comprising four diagnostic procedures and one therapeutic approach) that they consider to be often unnecessary and thus potentially wasteful. By itself this list is useful, but finding a way to reduce wasteful strategies will be a challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author highlights growing interest of patient reported outcome's use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials and in clinical practice. He discusses several studies that determine differences between patient's and physician's assessments of disease activity, and factors that influence the two measures. It also highlights that a patient's global assessment of ≤1 on a scale of 0-10 is needed as per Boolean remission criteria of the new The American College of Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR).

Objectives Self-monitoring and patient-initiated care (PIC) leads to fewer outpatient clinic visits in patients with established RA with low disease activity (LDA) while healthcare outcomes are similar. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of PIC with self-monitoring. Methods A 12-month randomized controlled trial was performed with 49 patients in the PIC with self-monitoring group (app-group) and 53 in usual care. The usual care group continued with preplanned visits. The app group had one planned follow-up visit after 12 months and monitored their RA disease activity in a smartphone app. Both groups could make additional appointments at liberty. We included adult RA patients with a disease duration of over 2 years, a disease activity score 28 (DAS28) below 3.2 that were stable on medication for at least 6 months. The effect measure, the DAS28, was measured at 12 months and healthcare resource usage and productivity losses were measured at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Results There was no significant difference in mean change of DAS28 (-0.04 mean difference, 95% CI: -0.39, 0.30), nor a statistically significant difference in total costs (mean difference €514, 95% CI:-€266, €3690) in the app group compared with the usual care group. The probability that the app was cost-effective was 0.37 and 0.57 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 0 and 50 000 €/point improvement DAS28, respectively. Conclusion Although rheumatic care costs were significantly lower in the app group, total costs and effects of PIC with self-monitoring were not different from usual care in RA patients with LDA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Glucocorticoids reduce disease activity and retard progression of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis, but current recommendations discourage their use because of drug adverse effects. This study examined the effects of low-dose glucocorticoids on weight gain and hypertension, which are among the more worrisome adverse effects for patients and rheumatologists. Visual Abstract. The Effect of Low-Dose Glucocorticoids Over Two Years on Weight and Blood Pressure in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Individual Patient Data From Five Randomized Trials Glucocorticoids reduce disease activity and retard progression of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis, but current recommendations discourage their use because of drug adverse effects. This study examined the effects of low-dose glucocorticoids on weight gain and hypertension, which are among the more worrisome adverse effects for patients and rheumatologists. Background: Weight gain and hypertension are well known adverse effects of treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Design: Pooled analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials with 2-year interventions allowing concomitant treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Setting: 12 countries in Europe. Patients: Early and established RA. Intervention: Glucocorticoids at 7.5 mg or less prednisone equivalent per day. Measurements: Coprimary end points were differences in change from baseline in body weight and mean arterial pressure after 2 years in intention-to-treat analyses. Difference in the change of number of antihypertensive drugs after 2 years was a secondary end point. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done to assess the robustness of primary findings. Results: A total of 1112 participants were included (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 14.5]; 68% women). Both groups gained weight in 2 years, but glucocorticoids led, on average, to 1.1 kg (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.8 kg; P  < 0.001) more weight gain than the control treatment. Mean arterial pressure increased by about 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a between-group difference of −0.4 mm Hg (CI, −3.0 to 2.2 mm Hg; P  = 0.187). These results were consistent in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Most patients did not change the number of antihypertensive drugs, and there was no evidence of differences between groups. Limitation: Body composition was not assessed, and generalizability to non-European regions may be limited. Conclusion: This study provides robust evidence that low-dose glucocorticoids, received over 2 years for the treatment of RA, increase weight by about 1 kg but do not increase blood pressure. Primary Funding Source: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of long-term low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in RA. Methods A protocolised systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO No. CRD42021252528) of double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trials (RCTs) comparing a low dose of GCs (≤ 7.5mg/day prednisone) to placebo over at least 2 years was performed. The primary outcome investigated was adverse events (AEs). We performed random-effects meta-analyses and used the Cochrane RoB tool and GRADE to assess risk of bias and quality of evidence (QoE). Results Six trials with 1078 participants were included. There was no evidence of an increased risk of AEs (incidence rate ratio 1.08; 95% CI 0.86, 1.34; P  = 0.52); however, the QoE was low. The risks of death, serious AEs, withdrawals due to AEs, and AEs of special interest did not differ from placebo (very low to moderate QoE). Infections occurred more frequently with GCs (risk ratio 1.4; 1.19–1.65; moderate QoE). Concerning benefit, we found moderate to high quality evidence of improvement in disease activity (DAS28: −0.23; −0.43 to −0.03), function (HAQ −0.09; −0.18 to 0.00), and Larsen scores (–4.61; −7.52 to −1.69). In other efficacy outcomes, including Sharp van der Heijde scores, there was no evidence of benefits with GCs. Conclusion There is very low to moderate QoE for no harm with long-term low dose GCs in RA, except for an increased risk of infections in GC users. The benefit-risk ratio might be reasonable forusing low-dose long-term GCs considering the moderate to high quality evidence for disease-modifying properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the effect of a multidisciplinary lifestyle program in patients with RA with low–moderate disease activity. Methods In the 'Plants for Joints' (PFJ) parallel-arm, assessor-blind randomized controlled trial, patients with RA and 28-joint DAS (DAS28) ≥2.6 and ≤5.1 were randomized to the PFJ or control group. The PFJ group followed a 16-week lifestyle program based on a whole-food plant-based diet, physical activity and stress management. The control group received usual care. Medication was kept stable 3 months before and during the trial whenever possible. We hypothesized that PFJ would lower disease activity (DAS28). Secondary outcomes included anthropometric, metabolic and patient-reported measures. An intention-to-treat analysis with a linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values was used to analyse between-group differences. Results Of the 83 people randomized, 77 completed the study. Participants were 92% female with mean (s. d.) age of 55 (12) years, BMI of 26 (4) kg/m2 and mean DAS28 of 3.8 (0.7). After 16 weeks the PFJ group had a mean 0.9-point greater improvement of DAS28 vs the control group (95% CI 0.4, 1.3; P  < 0.0001). The PFJ intervention led to greater decreases in body weight (difference –3.9 kg), fat mass (–2.8 kg), waist circumference (–3 cm), HbA1c (–1.3 mmol/mol) and low-density lipoprotein (–0.32 mmol/l), whereas patient-reported outcome measures, blood pressure, glucose and other lipids did not change. Conclusion The 16-week PFJ multidisciplinary lifestyle program substantially decreased disease activity and improved metabolic status in people with RA with low–moderate disease activity. Trial Registration International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform ; NL7800. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To identify highly ranked features related to clinicians' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee OA. Methods General practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs) were recruited to evaluate 5–10 years follow-up clinical and radiographic data of knees from the CHECK cohort for the presence of clinically relevant OA. GPs and SPs were gathered in pairs; each pair consisted of one GP and one SP, and the paired clinicians independently evaluated the same subset of knees. A diagnosis was made for each knee by the GP and SP before and after viewing radiographic data. Nested 5-fold cross-validation enhanced random forest models were built to identify the top 10 features related to the diagnosis. Results Seventeen clinician pairs evaluated 1106 knees with 139 clinical and 36 radiographic features. GPs diagnosed clinically relevant OA in 42% and 43% knees, before and after viewing radiographic data, respectively. SPs diagnosed in 43% and 51% knees, respectively. Models containing top 10 features had good performance for explaining clinicians' diagnosis with area under the curve ranging from 0.76–0.83. Before viewing radiographic data, quantitative symptomatic features (i.e. WOMAC scores) were the most important ones related to the diagnosis of both GPs and SPs; after viewing radiographic data, radiographic features appeared in the top lists for both, but seemed to be more important for SPs than GPs. Conclusions Random forest models presented good performance in explaining clinicians' diagnosis, which helped to reveal typical features of patients recognized as clinically relevant knee OA by clinicians from two different care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: What is known: Currently, medication bottles with an electronic cap are frequently used to measure medication adherence. This system is termed medication event monitoring system (MEMS). To our knowledge, the optimal method to summarize data from MEMS has not yet been determined. Objective: Look for best practices on how to quantify adherence data from MEMS. Methods: Review of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for the articles on medication adherence with MEMS. Results: Of 1493 identified articles, 207 were included in this review. The MEMS cap was used for a median of 3 months (IQR: 4; range: 1 week to 24 months) in various health conditions. Many different outcome measures were used. Most studies computed an adherence score, expressed as the percentage of days on which the correct dose of medication was taken. The threshold to mark people as adherent was most frequently, arbitrarily, set at 80% (range: 67%‐95%). We found no data to support a specific threshold. Discussion: Although the commonly used definition of adherence has face validity, we found no validation studies, and not all studies used the same cut‐off for adherence. Ideally, a cut‐off should be defined and validated in the context of the specific drug and its pharmacokinetic and dynamic characteristics, and perhaps other contextual factors, rather than generically. In addition, there was large heterogeneity in the definition of what "correct intake" of medication is. What is new and conclusion: Outcome measures for MEMS data lacked standardization, and no demonstrable effort to validate any definition against a relevant clinical outcome is available. Consensus on the definition of adherence is urgently needed. Outcome measures for Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) data lacked standardization and no demonstrable effort to validate any definition against a relevant clinical outcome is available. A consensus effort on the definition of adherence is urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the need to conduct large, simple, pragmatic trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis due to lack of enough evidence that will guide the choice of treatment for this disease. The pragmatic trials must be designed to determine the best way to treat rheumatoid arthritis as well as how to approach comorbidity and how patients should be monitored.

Comments on pharmaceutical clinical research. Evidence of bias in some trials due to pressure from sponsors; Efforts of editors of medical journals to make requirements for study authors more stringent; Suggestion that masked analyses should be used.

Discusses two studies that describe how selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibition can reduce the incidence of major gastrointestinal complications caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Findings of the CLASS study of celecoxib versus ibuprofen or diclofenac in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and the VIGOR study of rofecoxib versus naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis; Finding that the prevention of cardiovascular events is at the cost of significant gastrointestinal toxicity; Indications for the clinician.

Comments on the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Reference to research by Mette Klarlund and colleagues comparing MRI with conventional radiography, technetium scintigraphy, and clinical assessment of inflammation; Discussion of whether MRI satisfies the criteria for a useful clinical measurement; View that MRI has a limited role in the assessment of arthritis.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of treat-to-target combination therapy with intensification at 13 weeks in early RA. Methods Early RA patients were classified as being at high or low risk of worsening RA based on disease activity and prognostic factors. High-risk patients received COBRA-light (prednisolone 30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day, MTX increasing to 25 mg/week), and low-risk patients received MTX monotherapy increasing to 25 mg/week. The primary outcome (target) was DAS44 < 1.6 or EULAR good response at 26 weeks. At 13 weeks, non-responders were randomized to (open-label) intensification [high-risk patients: prednisolone 60 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day, addition of SSZ (2 g/day) and HCQ (400 mg/day); low-risk patients: prednisolone 30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day] or continuation. Results In the high-risk group (n  = 150), 110 patients (73%) reached the target at 13 weeks, and 9 dropped out. Non-responders were randomized to intensification (n  = 15) or continuation (n  = 16), and after 26 weeks, 12 (80%) vs 7 (44%) of these, respectively, reached the target [difference: 36%, (95% CI 2%, 71%); P  = 0.04]. In the low-risk group (n  = 40), 17 (43%) reached the target. Non-responders were randomized to intensification (n  = 8) or continuation (n  = 7); 4 vs 3, respectively, reached the target. Adverse event rates were higher in the high-risk group, and higher in the intensification subgroup of that group. Serious adverse events were rare. Protocol violations were frequent and mostly led to mitigation of actual treatment intensification. Conclusion Initial combination therapy was very successful in high-risk RA, and early intensification was beneficial in patients not reaching the strict target. The low-risk group was too small for drawing conclusions. In routine practice, adherence to early intensification based on strict targets is difficult. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), NL4393, https://www.trialregister.nl/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To develop prediction models for individual patient harm and benefit outcomes in elderly patients with RA and comorbidities treated with chronic low-dose glucocorticoid therapy or placebo. Methods In the Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis (GLORIA) study, 451 RA patients ≥65 years of age were randomized to 2 years 5 mg/day prednisolone or placebo. Eight prediction models were developed from the dataset in a stepwise procedure based on prior knowledge. The first set of four models disregarded study treatment and examined general predictive factors. The second set of four models was similar but examined the additional role of low-dose prednisolone. In each set, two models focused on harm [the occurrence of one or more adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and the number of AESIs per year) and two on benefit (early clinical response/disease activity and a lack of joint damage progression). Linear and logistic multivariable regression methods with backward selection were used to develop the models. The final models were assessed and internally validated with bootstrapping techniques. Results A few variables were slightly predictive for one of the outcomes in the models, but none were of immediate clinical value. The quality of the prediction models was sufficient and the performance was low to moderate (explained variance 12–15%, area under the curve 0.67–0.69). Conclusion Baseline factors are not helpful in selecting elderly RA patients for treatment with low-dose prednisolone given their low power to predict the chance of benefit or harm. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT02585258. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on the prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Antirheumatic agents and the length of time needed for follow up studies; The phenotype of RA differing between men and women; Association of RA and its manifestations with sex and related factors, such as pregnancy; The traditional therapeutic approach being challenged by early intervention strategy.

Background: An unfavorable body composition is often present in chronic arthritis patients. This unfavorable composition is a loss of muscle mass, with a stable or increased (abdominal) fat mass. Since it is unknown when this unfavorable composition develops, we compared body composition in disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive early arthritis patients with non-arthritis controls and explored the association, in early arthritis patients, with disease activity and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Methods: 317 consecutive early arthritis patients (84% rheumatoid arthritis according to 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria) and 1268 age-/gender-/ethnicity-matched non-arthritis controls underwent a Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan to assess fat percentage, fat mass index, fat mass distribution and appendicular lean (muscle) mass index. Additionally, disease activity, health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), acute phase proteins, lipid profile and blood pressure were evaluated. Results: Loss of muscle mass (corrected for age suspected muscle mass) was 4–5 times more common in early arthritis patients, with a significantly lower mean appendicular lean mass index (females 6% and males 7% lower, p<0.01). Patients had more fat distributed to the trunk (females p<0.01, males p = 0.07) and females had a 4% higher mean fat mass index (p<0.01). An unfavorable body composition was associated with a higher blood pressure and an atherogenic lipid profile. There was no relationship with disease activity, HAQ or acute phase proteins. Conclusion: Loss of muscle mass is 4–5 times more common in early arthritis patients, and is in early arthritis patients associated with a higher blood pressure and an atherogenic lipid profile. Therefore, cardiovascular risk is already increased at the clinical onset of arthritis making cardiovascular risk management necessary in early arthritis patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of initial COBRA-light vs COBRA therapy in RA patients after a 4-year follow-up period. Methods. In the COBRA-light trial, 162 consecutive patients with recent-onset RA were randomized to either COBRA-light (prednisolone and MTX) or COBRA therapy (prednisolone, MTX and SSZ) for 1 year. After 1 year, treatment was continued without protocol, and adjusted by the treating physician according to clinical judgement, preferably with a treat-to-target strategy. Four years after trial initiation, all patients were invited to participate in the COBRA-light extension study, in which patients were interviewed and physically examined, patient reported outcomes were assessed, radiographs were made and clinical records were examined for comorbidities and medication use. Results. In the extension study, 149 out of 162 (92%) original trial patients participated: 72 COBRA-light and 77 COBRA patients. Initial COBRA-light and COBRA therapy showed similar effect on disease activity, physical functioning, radiological outcome and Boolean remission over the 4-year follow-up period. In addition, both treatment groups showed similar survival and major comorbidities, although the power to detect differences was limited. Besides protocolled differences in prednisolone, MTX and SSZ use, the use of other synthetic and biologic DMARDs and intra-articular and intramuscular glucocorticoid injections was similar in both treatment groups over the 4-year period. Conclusion. Early RA patients initially treated with COBRA-light or COBRA therapy had similar efficacy and safety outcomes over a 4-year follow-up period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To relate [18F]fluoride uptake on PET with abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional radiography (CR) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients. Methods: Ten clinically active AS patients (female 6/10, age 38 ± 11 years) were included, and both spine and SI-joints were examined. PET scans were dichotomously scored for enhanced [18F]fluoride uptake, MRI scans were scored for fatty lesions, erosions, ankylosis, and bone marrow edema (BME), and CR was scored for erosions, syndesmophytes, and ankylosis. The overlap of lesions across all modalities was evaluated through univariate and multivariate analyses using a generalized mixed model. Results: In the spine, 69 lesions with enhanced [18F]fluoride uptake, 257 MRI lesions, and 88 CR lesions were observed. PET lesions were mostly located in costovertebral and facet joints, outside the field of view (FOV) of the MRI and CR. However, PET lesions inside the FOV of MRI and CR partially showed no abnormality on MRI and CR. In lesions with abnormalities on multiple modalities, both univariate and multivariate analysis showed that PET activity had the strongest association with BME on MRI and ankylosis on CR. In the SI joints, 15 lesions (75%) with PET uptake were found, with 87% showing abnormalities on MRI and CR. Conclusion: [18F]fluoride PET lesions are often found outside the scope of MRI and CR, and even in the same location show only partial overlap with abnormalities on MRI (especially BME) and CR (especially ankylosis). This suggests that [18F]fluoride PET partially visualizes aspects of AS separate from MRI and CR, providing novel information. Clinical trial registration: NL43223.029.13 registered at 02-05-2013. https://www.toetsingonline.nl/to/ccmo_search.nsf/fABRpop?readform&unids=C1257BA2002CC066C1257B4E0049A65A [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development and application of standardised sets of outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical trials have the potential to increase the efficiency and value of research. One of the most notable of the current outcome sets began nearly 20 years ago: the World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials, originating from the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) Initiative. This study assesses the use of this core outcome set by randomised trials in rheumatology.Methods: An observational review was carried out of 350 randomised trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis identified through The Cochrane Library (up to and including September 2012 issue). Reports of these trials were evaluated to determine whether or not there were trends in the proportion of trials reporting on the full set of core outcomes over time. Researchers who conducted trials after the publication of the core set were contacted to assess their awareness of it and to collect reasons for non-inclusion of the full core set of outcomes in the study.Results: Since the introduction of the core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis, the consistency of measurement of the core set of outcomes has improved, although variation in the choice of measurement instrument remains. The majority of trialists who responded said that they would consider using the core outcome set in the design of a new trial.Conclusions: This observational review suggests that a higher percentage of trialists conducting trials in rheumatoid arthritis are now measuring the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set. Core outcome sets have the potential to improve the evidence base for health care, but consideration must be given to the methods for disseminating their availability amongst the relevant communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA. Methods. Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Results. A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates. Conclusion. Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs. Systematic review registration number. PROSPERO CRD42014014842. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To investigate the effect of two different high-dose, step-down prednisolone regimens on body composition in early RA patients after 26 weeks of treatment. Methods. Prednisolone-naive patients with recent-onset RA (n = 108) were randomized to either COBRA (prednisolone 60 mg/day, tapered to 7.5 mg/day in 6 weeks; MTX and SSZ) or COBRA-light therapy (prednisolone 30 mg/day, tapered to 7.5 mg/day in 8 weeks and MTX). Body composition was assessed at baseline (before or soon after start of treatment) and after 26 weeks with DXA, and recorded as total body mass (TBM), total fat mass (FM), total lean mass (LM) and trunk/peripheral fat ratio. Log-ratio analyses assessed the proportional distribution of TBM (between LM, FM and bone mass) and FM (between trunk, extremities and head). The subgroup of patients with a DXA before start of treatment (n = 38) was analysed separately. Results. In the subgroup of patients with a DXA before start of treatment, TBM increased by 1.6 kg (P < 0.001) and total FM by 1.3 kg (P < 0.001). The trunk/peripheral fat ratio and the proportional distribution of TBM and FM remained stable over time. There were no differences between the treatment groups. Similar results were obtained in the study population as a whole. Conclusion. Both high-dose, step-down prednisolone regimens caused increases in TBM, mainly caused by an increase in FM, but we found no fat redistribution from peripheral to central tissues. This absence in fat redistribution contradicts the widely held assumption of rapid adverse effects of prednisolone on body composition in RA. Trial registration: ISRCTNregistry, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN55552928 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We developed a smartphone application for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that allows them to self‐monitor their disease activity in between clinic visits by answering a weekly Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3. This study was undertaken to assess the safety (noninferiority in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28‐ESR]) and efficacy (reduction in number of visits) of patient‐initiated care assisted using a smartphone app, compared to usual care. Methods: A 12‐month, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial was conducted in RA patients with low disease activity and without treatment changes in the past 6 months. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either app‐supported patient‐initiated care with a scheduled follow‐up consultation after a year (app intervention group) or usual care. The coprimary outcome measures were noninferiority in terms of change in DAS28‐ESR score after 12 months and the ratio of the mean number of consultations with rheumatologists between the groups. The noninferiority limit was 0.5 difference in DAS28‐ESR between the groups. Results: Of the 103 randomized patients, 102 completed the study. After a year, noninferiority in terms of the DAS28‐ESR score was established, as the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the mean ΔDAS28‐ESR between the groups was within the noninferiority limit: −0.04 in favor of the app intervention group (95% CI −0.39, 0.30). The number of rheumatologist consultations was significantly lower in the app intervention group compared to the usual care group (mean ± SD 1.7 ± 1.8 versus 2.8 ± 1.4; visit ratio 0.62 [95% CI 0.47, 0.81]). Conclusion: Patient‐initiated care supported by smartphone self‐monitoring was noninferior to usual care in terms of the ΔDAS28‐ESR and led to a 38% reduction in rheumatologist consultations in RA patients with stable low disease activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reflects on medical error and a situation in which a young patient had myocardial infarction. Way that the physician refused to look at an electrocardiogram because he had assumed it would be normal; View that pattern recognition must be balanced by a strong reflex of self-doubt and appraisal of all evidence.

Objectives To investigate the dynamics of response of synovitis to IL-17A inhibition with secukinumab in patients with active PsA using Power Doppler ultrasound. Methods The randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III ULTIMATE study enrolled PsA patients with active ultrasound synovitis and clinical synovitis and enthesitis having an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs and naïve to biologic DMARDs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either weekly subcutaneous secukinumab (300 or 150 mg according to the severity of psoriasis) or placebo followed by 4-weekly dosing thereafter. The primary outcome was the mean change in the ultrasound Global EULAR and OMERACT Synovitis Score (GLOESS) from baseline to week 12. Key secondary endpoints included ACR 20 and 50 responses. Results Of the 166 patients enrolled, 97% completed 12 weeks of treatment (secukinumab, 99%; placebo, 95%). The primary end point was met, and the adjusted mean change in GLOESS was higher with secukinumab than placebo [−9 (0.9) vs −6 (0.9), difference (95% CI): −3 (−6, −1); one-sided P= 0.004] at week 12. The difference in GLOESS between secukinumab and placebo was significant as early as one week after initiation of treatment. All key secondary endpoints were met. No new or unexpected safety findings were reported. Conclusion This unique ultrasound study shows that apart from improving the signs and symptoms of PsA, IL-17A inhibition with secukinumab leads to a rapid and significant reduction of synovitis in PsA patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02662985. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports a response after switching from prednisole to dexamethasone in three D2T-RA patients with active disease despite prednisolone. Topics discussed include possible mechanisms why response to different glucocorticoids (GCs) may vary, pharmacodynamic differences between GCs, and characteristics of 3 ACPA-positive patients switched from prednisolone to dexamethasone.

Background Recent qualitative research has shown that stiffness is an important symptom for patients to identify remission. However, it is unclear how to measure stiffness in low disease activity. This systematic review aims to summarise the existing literature on validity of patient reported outcomes to measure stiffness in RA low disease activity states, to aid the choice for a measurement instrument. Methods An extensive pubmed-search was undertaken, identifying measurement instruments for patient perceived stiffness used in low disease activity. Eligible studies reported on 1) stiffness as an outcome in relation to other core set measures, 2) development of a patient reported tool to measure stiffness, or 3) comparison of two different tools to measure aspects of stiffness, all in low disease activity. Results Of 788 titles, only two studies report on validity of stiffness measures within low disease activity. Morning stiffness (MS) is reported in 44 to 80% of patients in low disease activity. A difference of 40 to 60 minutes in duration until maximum improvement is observed between active and inactive patients. Severity of MS might discriminate better between high and low disease activity compared to measurement of duration of MS. Conclusions There is insufficient data on measurement of stiffness in the spectrum of low disease activity or remission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Although there is a general focus on early diagnosis and treatment of hip OA, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA. The current study aimed to take the first steps in developing diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA, using factors obtained through history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing at the first consultation in individuals presenting with hip pain, suspicious for hip OA, in primary care. Methods Data of the 543 individuals with 735 symptomatic hips at baseline who had any follow-up data available from the prospective CHECK cohort study were used. A group of 26 clinical experts [general practitioners (GPs), rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons] evaluated standardized clinical assessment forms of all subjects on the presence of clinically relevant hip OA 5–10 years after baseline. Using the expert-based diagnoses as reference standard, a backward selection method was used to create predictive models based on pre-defined baseline factors from history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing. Results Prevalence of clinically relevant hip OA during follow-up was 22%. Created models contained four to eight baseline factors (mainly WOMAC pain items, painful/restricted movements and radiographic features) and obtained area under the curve between 0.62 (0.002) and 0.71 (0.002). Conclusion Based on clinical and radiographic features of hip OA obtained at first consultation at a GP for pain/stiffness of the hip, the prediction of clinically relevant hip OA within 5–10 years was 'poor' to 'fair'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]