Early rheumatoid arthritis: the performance of the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for diagnosing RA

New classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were presented by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) in 2010, aiming for early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent and erosive arthritis. Since their publication, the criteria have been extensively validated against several reference standards, but there is still debate regarding how the criteria should be implemented in studies and clinical care. We present an overview of the published validation studies and discuss the strengths and limitations of the classification criteria, as well as whether the criteria are ready for diagnostic purposes in clinical practice.

A systematic literature review of strategies promoting early referral and reducing delays in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory arthritis

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of timely management of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA), delays exist in its diagnosis and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic literature review to identify strategies addressing these delays to inform an American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce.

METHODS

The authors searched literature published between January 1985 and November 2010, and ACR and EULAR abstracts between 2007-2010. Additional information was obtained through a grey literature search, a survey conducted through ACR and EULAR, and a hand search of the literature.

RESULTS

(1) From symptom onset to primary care, community case-finding strategies, including the use of a questionnaire and autoantibody testing, have been designed to identify patients with early IA. Several websites provided information on IA but were of varying quality and insufficient to aid early referral. (2) At a primary care level, education programmes and patient self-administered questionnaires identified patients with potential IA for referral to rheumatology. Many guidelines emphasised the need for early referral with one providing specific referral criteria. (3) Once referred, early arthritis clinics provided a point of early access for rheumatology assessment. Triage systems, including triage clinics, helped prioritise clinic appointments for patients with IA. Use of referral forms standardised information required, further optimising the triage process. Wait times for patients with acute IA were also reduced with development of rapid access systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified three main areas of delay to care for patients with IA and potential solutions for each. A co-ordinated effort will be required by the rheumatology and primary care community to address these effectively.

Determining Best Practices in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis by Comparing Differences in Treatment at Sites in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort

Objective.

To determine site variation by comparing outcomes across sites in an early rheumatoid arthritis cohort.

Methods.

Sites from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort database with at least 40 patients were studied. Comparisons were made among sites in change in 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), proportion of patients in DAS28 remission, and treatment strategies.

Results.

The study included 1138 baseline patients at 8 sites, with baseline (SD) age 52 years (16.9); 72% women; 23% erosions; 54% ever smokers; 51% rheumatoid factor-positive; 37% anticitrullinated protein antibody-positive; disease duration 187 (203) days; DAS28 4.5 (1.4). Site had an effect on outcomes when adjusting for confounders. At 6 and 12 months, sites B and H, the 2 largest sites, had the best changes in DAS28 (−1.82 and −2.09, respectively, at 6 mos, and −2.27 for both at 12 mos; p < 0.001). Site H had the most patients in DAS28 remission at 6 months [64.5% compared to other sites that had from 34.1% to 51.7% (p < 0.001)], and at the last followup, sites B and H had the most in remission. Subcutaneous methotrexate was used more overall and earlier at sites B and H. Those sites used less steroid therapy, and site B had the second-highest use of triple disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at any visit. Medications were increased more in 2 of the 3 smallest sites. Biologics were used by 9 months most in the smallest (50.0%) and then largest (19.6%) sites.

Conclusion.

Sites in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort yielded different outcomes. Better outcomes up to 12 months may result from initial treatment with early combination therapy and/or subcutaneous methotrexate.

The Relationship Between Function and Disease Activity as Measured by the HAQ and DAS28 Varies Over Time and by Rheumatoid Factor Status in Early Inflammatory Arthritis (EIA). Results from the CATCH Cohort

Objective:

To investigate the relationship between function and disease activity in early inflammatory arthritis (EIA).

Methods:

Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) (n=1143) is a multi-site EIA cohort. Correlations between the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) and DAS28 were done at every 3 months for the first year and then at 18 and 24 months. We also investigated the relationship between HAQ and DAS28 by age (<65 versus ≥65) and RF (positive vs negative).

Results:

Mean HAQ and DAS28 scores were highest at the initial visit with HAQ decreasing over 24 months from a baseline of 0.94 to 0.40 and DAS28 scores decreasing from 4.54 to 2.29. All correlations between HAQ and DAS28 were significant at all time points (p<0.01). The correlations between HAQ and DAS28 were variable over time. The strongest correlation between HAQ and DAS28 occurred at initial visit (most DMARD naive) (n=1,143) and 18 months (r=0.57, n=321) and 24 months (r=0.59, n=214). The baseline correlation between HAQ and DAS28 was significantly different than correlations obtained at 3, 6, and 12 months (p=0.02, 0.01, and 0.01, respectively). Age did not change the association between HAQ and DAS28 {<65 years old (r=0.50, n=868) versus ≥65 (r=0.48, n=254), p=0.49}. The correlation between HAQ and DAS28 was stronger with RF+ patients (r=0.63, n=636) vs RF negative (r=0.47, n=477), p=0.0043

Conclusion:

Over 2 years in EIA, HAQ and DAS both improved; correlations at time points were different over 2 years and RF status affected the correlations.

Achieving remission in clinical practice: lessons from clinical trial data

This review examines the literature on the frequency of remission associated with different treatment approaches in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA). Trials reporting remission outcomes were identified through searches of the CINAHL, EMBASE, and Medline (PubMed) databases from 2000 through August 2012. Additional literature was identified through hand searching. The proportion of patients achieving remission and/or radiographic non-progression was extracted from each study. Evidence was examined in the context of unified remission criteria and practical considerations for achieving and maintaining remission are discussed. The literature highlights the benefits of early treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) combination therapy, combination therapy with a biologic, and tight control with a pre-specified treatment target in achieving remission in ERA. The added stringency of the 2011 remission criteria may increase the proportion of patients achieving true remission, while identifying predictors of sustained remission may also help patients achieve better radiographic and functional outcomes.

Validation of a Self-administered Inflammatory Arthritis Detection Tool for Rheumatology Triage

Objective.

The benefits of early intensive treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA) are dependent on timely and accurate case identification. In our study, a scoring algorithm for a self-administered IA detection tool was developed and validated for the rheumatology triage clinical setting.

Methods.

A total of 143 consecutive consenting adults, newly referred to 2 outpatient rheumatology practices, completed the tool. A scoring algorithm was derived from the best-fit logistic regression model using age, sex, and responses to the 12 tool items as candidate predictors of the rheumatologists' blinded classification of IA. Bootstrapping was used to internally validate and refine the model.

Results.

The 30 IA cases were younger than the 113 non-cases (p < 0.0001) and included clinical diagnoses of early IA (n = 10), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 9), and spondyloarthropathies (n = 11). Non-cases included osteoarthritis (n = 46), pain syndromes (n = 19), systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 5), and miscellaneous, noninflammatory musculoskeletal complaints (n = 43). The best-fit model included younger age, male sex, “trouble making a fist,” “morning stiffness,” “ever told you have RA,” and “psoriasis diagnosis.” The overall predictive performance (standard error, SE) of the derivation model was 0.91 (0.03). Internal validation of the derivation model across 200 bootstrap samples resulted in a mean predictive performance (SE) of 0.904 (0.002). The refined tool had a mean predictive performance (SE) of 0.915 (0.002), a sensitivity of 0.855 (0.005), and specificity of 0.873 (0.003).

Conclusion.

A simple, self-administered tool was developed and internally validated for the sensitive and specific detection of IA in a rheumatology waiting list sample. The tool may be used to triage IA from rheumatology referrals.

Increasing treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis is not determined by the disease activity score but by physician global assessment: results from the CATCH study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the factors most strongly associated with an increase in therapy of early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).

METHODS

Data from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) were included if the patient had ≥ 2 visits and baseline and 6 months data. A regression analysis was done to determine factors associated with treatment intensification.

RESULTS

Of 1145 patients with ERA, 790 met inclusion criteria; mean age was 53.4 years (SD 14.7), mean disease duration 6.1 months (SD 2.8), 75% were female, baseline Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) was 4.7 (SD 1.8) and 2.9 (SD 1.8) at 6 months for included patients. Univariate factors for intensifying treatment were physician global assessment (MDGA; OR 7.8 and OR 7.4 at 3 and 6 months, respectively, p < 0.0005), swollen joint count (SJC; OR 4.7 and OR 7.3 at 3 and 6 months, p < 0.0005), and DAS28 (OR 3.0 and OR 4.6 at 3 and 6 months, p < 0.0005). In the regression model only MDGA was strongly associated with treatment intensification (OR 1.5 and OR 1.2 at 3 and 6 months, p < 0.0005); DAS28 was not consistently predictive (OR 1.0, p = 0.987, and OR 1.2, p = 0.023, at 3 and 6 months). DAS28 was the reason for treatment intensification 2.3% of the time, compared to 51.7% for SJC, 49.9% for tender joint count, and 23.8% for MDGA. For the same SJC, larger joint involvement was more likely to influence treatment than small joints at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

MDGA was strongly associated with an increase in treatment at 3 and 6 months in ERA, whereas DAS28 was not. Physicians rarely stated that DAS28 was the reason for increasing treatment.

The Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH): patients with new-onset synovitis meeting the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria but not the 1987 ACR classification criteria present with less severe disease activity

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to describe characteristics of Canadian patients with early arthritis and examine differences between those fulfilling 1987 and 2010 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) classification criteria.

METHODS

The Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) is a national, multicenter, observational, prospective cohort of patients with early inflammatory arthritis, receiving usual care, recruited since 2007. Inclusion criteria include age > 16 years; symptom duration 6-52 weeks; swelling of ≥ 2 joints or ≥ 1 metacarpophalangeal/proximal interphalangeal joint; and 1 of rheumatoid factor ≥ 20 IU, positive anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA), morning stiffness ≥ 45 min, response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, or positive metatarsophalangeal joint squeeze test. Data from patients enrolled to March 15, 2011, were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 1450 patients met the eligibility criteria (1187 were followed). At baseline, mean age was 53 ± 15 years, symptom duration was 6.1 ± 3.2 months, Disease Activity Score (DAS28) was 4.9 ± 1.6, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index was 1.0 ± 0.7. Forty-one percent (n = 450) of patients had moderate (3.2 < DAS28 ≤ 5.1) and 46% (n = 505) had high (DAS28 > 5.1) disease activity; 28% of those with baseline radiographs (n = 250/908) had radiographic evidence of erosions. ACPA status was available for 70% (n = 831) of patients; 55% (n = 453) tested positive. Sixty percent (n = 718) of patients were treated with methotrexate (MTX) initially. Of 612 patients without erosions, 63% and 83% fulfilled 1987 and 2010 RA classification criteria, respectively. Seventy-three percent (n = 166) of those who did not fulfill 1987 criteria were newly identified by the 2010 criteria. These patients had less severe disease and more were MTX-naive compared to those satisfying the 1987 criteria. Forty-seven percent of all patients achieved remission at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Patients with early RA present with moderate high disease activity; < 50% achieve remission at 1 year, despite MTX treatment in the majority. The 2010 RA classification criteria identify more patients with RA who would previously have been designated as having undifferentiated disease. However, these patients have lower disease activity at the time of identification.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008-09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 49,242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

Incidence and predictors of secondary fibromyalgia in an early arthritis cohort

OBJECTIVES

Secondary fibromyalgia (FM) is common among patients with inflammatory arthritis, but little is known about its incidence and the factors leading to its development. The authors examined the incidence of secondary FM in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort, and assessed the association between pain, inflammation, psychosocial variables and the clinical diagnosis of FM.

METHODS

Data from 1487 patients in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a prospective, observational Canadian cohort of early inflammatory arthritis patients were analysed. Diagnoses of FM were determined by rheumatologists. Incidence rates were calculated, and Cox regression models were used to determine HRs for FM risk.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence rate was 6.77 (95% CI 5.19 to 8.64) per 100 person-years during the first 12 months after inflammatory arthritis diagnosis, and decreased to 3.58 (95% CI 1.86 to 6.17) per 100 person-years 12-24 months after arthritis diagnosis. Pain severity (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.46) and poor mental health (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.62) predicted FM risk. Citrullinated peptide positivity (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.88) was associated with decreased FM risk. Serum inflammatory markers and swollen joint count were not significantly associated with FM risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of FM was from 3.58 to 6.77 cases per 100 person-years, and was highest during the first 12 months after diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis. Although inflammation was not associated with the clinical diagnosis of FM, pain severity and poor mental health were associated with the clinical diagnosis of FM. Seropositivity was inversely associated with the clinical diagnosis of FM.

Tocilizumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to DMARDs and/or TNF inhibitors: a large, open-label study close to clinical practice

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses (IR) to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or both DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFis).

Methods

Patients—categorised as TNFi-naive, TNFi-previous (washout) or TNFi-recent (no washout) —received open-label tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks ± DMARDs for 24 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuations were monitored. Efficacy end points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism responses.

Results

Overall, 1681 (976 TNF-naive, 298 TNFi-previous and 407 TNFi-recent) patients were treated; 5.1% discontinued treatment because of AEs. The AE rate was numerically higher in TNFi-recent (652.6/100 patient-years (PY)) and TNFi-previous (653.6/100PY) than in TNFi-naive (551.1/100PY) patients. Serious AE rates were 18.0/100PY, 28.0/100PY and 18.6/100PY; serious infection rates were 6.0/100PY, 6.8/100PY and 4.2/100PY, respectively. At week 4, 36.5% of patients achieved ACR20 response and 14.9% DAS28 remission (<2.6); at week 24, 66.9%, 46.6%, 26.4% and 56.8% achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 responses and DAS28 remission, respectively. Overall, 61.6% (TNFi-naive), 48.5% (TNFi-previous) and 50.4% (TNFi-recent) patients achieved DAS28 remission.

Conclusions

In patients with RA who were DMARD-IR/TNFi-IR, tocilizumab ± DMARDs provided rapid and sustained efficacy without unexpected safety concerns.

A systematic literature review of strategies promoting early referral and reducing delays in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory arthritis

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of timely management of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA), delays exist in its diagnosis and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic literature review to identify strategies addressing these delays to inform an American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce.

METHODS

The authors searched literature published between January 1985 and November 2010, and ACR and EULAR abstracts between 2007-2010. Additional information was obtained through a grey literature search, a survey conducted through ACR and EULAR, and a hand search of the literature.

RESULTS

(1) From symptom onset to primary care, community case-finding strategies, including the use of a questionnaire and autoantibody testing, have been designed to identify patients with early IA. Several websites provided information on IA but were of varying quality and insufficient to aid early referral. (2) At a primary care level, education programmes and patient self-administered questionnaires identified patients with potential IA for referral to rheumatology. Many guidelines emphasised the need for early referral with one providing specific referral criteria. (3) Once referred, early arthritis clinics provided a point of early access for rheumatology assessment. Triage systems, including triage clinics, helped prioritise clinic appointments for patients with IA. Use of referral forms standardised information required, further optimising the triage process. Wait times for patients with acute IA were also reduced with development of rapid access systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified three main areas of delay to care for patients with IA and potential solutions for each. A co-ordinated effort will be required by the rheumatology and primary care community to address these effectively.

Sustained rheumatoid arthritis remission is uncommon in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Remission is an important goal of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but data on duration of remission are lacking. Our objective was to describe the duration of remission in RA, assessed by different criteria.

METHODS

We evaluated patients from the Brigham and Women's Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) not in remission at baseline with at least 2 years of follow-up. Remission was assessed according to the Disease Activity Score 28-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP4), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores, and the recently proposed American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria for remission. Analyses were performed by using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

We identified 871 subjects with ≥ 2 years of follow-up. Of these subjects, 394 were in remission at one or more time-points and not in remission at baseline, according to at least one of the following criteria: DAS28-CRP < 2.6 (n = 309), DAS28-CRP < 2.3 (n = 275), SDAI (n = 168), CDAI (n = 170), and 2010 ACR/EULAR (n = 158). The median age for the 394 subjects at entrance to BRASS was 56 years; median disease duration was 8 years; 81% were female patients; and 72% were seropositive. Survival analysis performed separately for each remission criterion demonstrated that < 50% of subjects remained in remission 1 year later. Median remission survival time was 1 year. Kaplan-Meier curves of the various remission criteria did not significantly differ (P = 0.29 according to the log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that in clinical practice, a minority of RA patients are in sustained remission.

Identifying preliminary domains to detect and measure rheumatoid arthritis flares: report of the OMERACT 10 RA Flare Workshop

BACKGROUND

While disease flares in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are a recognized aspect of the disease process, there is limited formative research to describe them.

METHODS

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) RA Flare Definition Working Group is conducting an international research project to understand the specific characteristics and impact of episodic disease worsening, or "flare," so that outcome measures can be developed or modified to reflect this uncommonly measured, but very real and sometimes disabling RA disease feature. Patient research partners provided critical insights into the multidimensional nature of flare. The perspectives of patients and healthcare and research professionals are being integrated to ensure that any outcome measurement to detect flares fulfills the first OMERACT criteria of Truth. Through an iterative data-driven Delphi process, a preliminary list of key domains has been identified to evaluate flare.

RESULTS

At OMERACT 10, consensus was achieved identifying features of flare in addition to the existing core set for RA, including fatigue, stiffness, symptom persistence, systemic features, and participation. Patient self-report of flare was identified as a component of the research agenda needed to establish criterion validity for a flare definition; this can be used in prospective studies to further evaluate the Discrimination and Feasibility components of the OMERACT filter for a flare outcome measure.

CONCLUSION

Our work to date has provided better understanding of key aspects of the RA disease process as episodic, potentially disabling disease worsening even when a patient is in low disease activity. It also highlights the importance of developing ways to enhance communication between patients and clinicians and improve the ability to achieve "tight control" of disease.

Remission and radiographic outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: application of the 2011 ACR/EULAR remission criteria in an observational cohort

Objectives

One goal of remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is to halt joint damage. The authors assessed the progression of radiographic joint damage among RA patients in remission by the new ACR/EULAR criteria (Boolean approach) compared with remission thresholds for the simplified disease activity index (SDAI), clinical disease activity index (CDAI) and disease activity score based on 28 joints and C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in an observational cohort, and evaluated the relationship between time in remission and radiographic joint damage.

Methods

535 RA patients underwent physical examination and laboratory assessment at baseline, 1 and 2 years. Radiographs at baseline and 2 years were scored by the van der Heijde modified Sharp score (TSS). Positive likelihood ratios for a good radiographic outcome (change in TSS <1 unit/year) were calculated for each of the remission criteria. Radiographic progression was compared between patients in remission at none, one, two and three visits by χ2 goodness of fit statistics.

Results

20% of patients in ACR/EULAR remission at baseline had radiographic progression, 24% in SDAI remission, 19% in CDAI remission and 30% of patients in DAS28–CRP remission. The positive likelihood ratio for good radiographic outcome was 2.6 for ACR/EULAR criteria, 2.1 for SDAI, 2.8 for CDAI and.1.5 for DAS28–CRP. Reduced radiographic progression was observed for patients with an increasing number of visits in remission (p<0.003 for all criteria, χ2 goodness of fit statistics).

Conclusions

Patients with RA in remission by any established criteria can experience radiographic progression. An increased number of visits in remission was associated with reduced radiographic damage.

Safety and effectiveness of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis following an inadequate response to 1 prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor: the RESET Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after failure of a single tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor. Changes in patient-reported outcomes after primary treatment or retreatment with RTX and factors determining retreatment in clinical practice were also evaluated.

METHODS

In this phase 3b open-label, multicenter trial, patients received 2 slow infusions of RTX 1000 mg 14 days apart after premedication (primary treatment). Patients with a clinically relevant response could receive retreatment between 24 and 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was evaluation of safety. Secondary outcomes were safety of retreatment, effectiveness of primary treatment and retreatment, and changes in patient-reported outcomes after primary treatment or retreatment.

RESULTS

Of 120 patients enrolled at 36 centers and receiving primary RTX treatment, 77 received retreatment, 112 completed the 24-week primary treatment period, and 25 completed the 48-week primary treatment and retreatment period following a single course of RTX. The most common adverse events were mild to moderate nausea, vomiting, nasopharyngitis, and headache. No infections or infusion reactions were considered life-threatening. At 24 weeks, 58%, 27%, and 7% of patients achieved American College of Rheumatology 20, 50, and 70 improvements, respectively, and similar improvements were seen after retreatment.

CONCLUSION

RTX was well tolerated, with a low incidence of infusion reactions and infections. Efficacy results, including enhanced response in rheumatoid factor-positive patients, were comparable to those reported in the literature. Based on its efficacy and safety profile and retreatment schedule, RTX is an attractive treatment option for patients that have not responded to a single TNF-α inhibitor.

Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVE

The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) has developed recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in 2 parts. Part 1 is reported here.

METHODS

The CRA Therapeutics Committee assembled a national working group of RA clinical experts, researchers, patient consumers, and a general practitioner. Treatment questions were developed a priori based on results of a national needs assessment survey. A systematic review of all clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA published between January 2000 and June 2010 was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and the grey literature. Guideline quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers, and guideline characteristics, recommendations, and supporting evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials were synthesized into evidence tables. The full working group reviewed the evidence tables and developed recommendations using a modified Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Five overarching principles and 26 recommendations addressing general RA management strategies and treatment with glucocorticoids and traditional and biologic DMARD were developed for rheumatologists, other primary prescribers of RA drug therapies, and patients with RA.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations were developed based on a synthesis of international guidelines, supporting evidence, and expert consensus considering the Canadian healthcare context with the intention of promoting best practices and improving healthcare delivery for persons with RA.

Algorithm for identification of undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a multinational collaboration through the 3e initiative

OBJECTIVE

To develop an algorithm for identification of undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA).

METHODS

An algorithm for identification of UPIA was developed by consensus during a roundtable meeting with an expert panel. It was informed by systematic reviews of the literature used to generate 10 recommendations for the investigation and followup of UPIA through the 3e initiative. The final recommendations from the 3e UPIA Initiative were made available to the panel to guide development of the algorithm. The algorithm drew on the clinical experience of the consensus panel and evidence from the literature where available.

RESULTS

In patients presenting with joint swelling a thorough evaluation is required prior to diagnosing UPIA. After excluding trauma, the differential diagnosis should be formulated based on history and physical examination. A minimum set of investigations is suggested for all patients, with additional ones dependent on the most probable differential diagnoses. The diagnosis of UPIA can be made if, following these evaluations, a more specific diagnosis is not reached. Once a diagnosis of UPIA is established, patients should be closely followed as they may progress to a specific diagnosis, remit, or persist as UPIA, and additional investigations may be required over time.

CONCLUSION

Our algorithm presents a diagnostic approach to identifying UPIA in patients presenting with joint swelling, incorporating the dynamic nature of the condition with the potential to evolve over time.

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.

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 criticized 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 3 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 "rheumatoid arthritis."

RESULTS

In the new criteria set, classification as "definite RA" is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0-5), serologic abnormality (score range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (score range 0-1), and symptom duration (2 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 minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis."

Classification of rheumatologic opinion on early inflammatory arthritis: harmonization of a heterogeneous standard

OBJECTIVE

Interrater variability limits rheumatologic opinion as a reference standard for early inflammatory arthritis (IA) classification. The study objectives were to determine whether rheumatologic opinion is associated with potential early IA classification methods despite high interrater variability, and to compare the relative strengths of those associations.

METHODS

Eighteen rheumatologists independently classified 30 initial rheumatology presentation summaries as early IA or not and recommended a pharmacotherapy. Case fulfillment of the following classification methods was independently determined: early referral to rheumatology recommendation for rheumatoid arthritis (ERRR), common early IA cohort inclusion criteria (CEAC), and prevalent IA classification criteria (American College of Rheumatology [ACR]/European Spondylarthropathy Study Group [ESSG]). Associations between rheumatologic opinion, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) recommendation, and each classification method were determined.

RESULTS

Participating rheumatologists published on early IA and represented 3 continents. The median case was age 43 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-53) years, had 40 (IQR 24-104) weeks of symptoms, 60 (IQR 18-120) minutes of morning stiffness, a swollen joint count of 6 (IQR 1-13), and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 25 (IQR 10-51) mm/hour. The mean ± SD multiple-rater kappa for rheumatologic opinion on early IA was 0.16 ± 0.02. The common odds ratios for associations between rheumatologic opinion and ERRR, CEAC, and ACR/ESSG were 10.3 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.6-23.2), 4.4 (95% CI 2.5-7.7), and 0.7 (95% CI 0.4-1.1), respectively. Odds ratios for associations between DMARD recommendation and ERRR, rheumatologic opinion, CEAC, and ACR/ESSG were 18.7 (95% CI 8.1-43.2), 10.6 (95% CI 6.0-18.8), 2.8 (95% CI 1.7-4.6), and 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.7), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Classification methods can be used to harmonize rheumatologic opinion of early IA despite high interrater variability. The ERRR is very strongly associated with both rheumatologic opinions of early IA and DMARD treatment recommendations.

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'.

Canadian recommendations for use of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations for the use of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Canadian rheumatologists who participated in the international 3e Initiative in Rheumatology (evidence, expertise, exchange) in 2007-2008 formulated 5 unique Canadian questions. A bibliographic team systematically reviewed the relevant literature on these 5 topics. An expert committee consisting of 26 rheumatologists from across Canada was convened, and a set of recommendations was proposed based on the results of systematic reviews combined with expert opinions using a nominal group consensus process.

RESULTS

The 5 questions addressed drug interactions, predictors of response, strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, variables to assess clinical response, and incorporating patient preference into decision-making. The systematic review retrieved 93 pertinent articles; this evidence was presented to the expert committee during the interactive workshop. After extensive discussion and voting, a total of 9 recommendations were formulated: 2 on drug interactions, 1 on predictors of response, 2 on strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, 3 on variables to assess clinical response, and 1 on incorporating patient preferences into decision-making. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendations are reported. Agreement among panelists ranged from 85% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Nine recommendations pertaining to the use of MTX in daily practice were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert/physician consensus with high level of agreement.

Development of a self-administered early inflammatory arthritis detection tool

BACKGROUND

Barriers to care limit the potential benefits of pharmacological intervention for inflammatory arthritis. A self-administered questionnaire for early inflammatory arthritis (EIA) detection may complement contemporary triage interventions to further reduce delays to rheumatologic care. The objective of this study was to develop a self-administered EIA detection tool for implementation in pre-primary care settings.

METHODS

A core set of dimensions and constructs for EIA detection were systematically derived from the literature and augmented by investigative team arbitration. Identified constructs were formulated into lay language questions suitable for self-administration. A three-round Delphi consensus panel of EIA experts and stakeholders evaluated the relevance of each question to EIA detection and suggested additional items. Questions accepted by less than 70% of respondents in rounds one or two were eliminated. In round three, questions accepted by at least 80% of the panel were selected for the tool.

RESULTS

Of 584 citations identified, data were extracted from 47 eligible articles. Upon arbitration of the literature synthesis, 30 constructs encompassing 13 dimensions were formulated into lay language questions and posed to the Delphi panel. A total of 181 EIA experts and stakeholders participated on the Delphi panel: round one, 60; round two, 59; and, round three, 169; 48 participated in all three rounds. The panel evaluated the 30 questions derived from the literature synthesis, suggested five additional items, and eliminated a total of 24. The eleven-question instrument developed captured dimensions of articular pain, swelling, and stiffness, distribution of joint involvement, function, and diagnostic and family history.

CONCLUSIONS

An eleven-question, EIA detection tool suitable for self-administration was developed to screen subjects with six to 52 weeks of musculoskeletal complaints. Psychometric and performance property testing of the tool is ongoing.

Validation of a prediction rule for development of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with early undifferentiated arthritis

Objective:

To validate a model which predicts progression from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA, in a Canadian UA cohort.

Methods:

The prediction rule, comprising variables which are scored from 0 to 13, with higher scores reflecting an increased risk of RA, was applied to baseline characteristics of all patients with UA. Progression to RA was determined at 6 months.

Results:

105 patients were identified. By 6 months, 80 (76%) had developed RA while 25 (24%) had developed another diagnosis. Number of tender and swollen joints, rheumatoid factor positivity, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide positivity, poor functional status and high disease activity were associated with development of RA (p<0.01). Median prediction score was 8.0 for progressors, 5.0 for non-progressors. With these cut-off points, 18 (72%) patients with scores ⩽5 did not develop RA, while 35 (97%) with scores ⩾8 did develop RA.

Conclusions:

High scores in our cohort predicted those who progressed to RA by 6 months. Baseline scores ⩾8 corresponded with higher rates of progression.

Are the 2002 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis being followed in Canada's largest academic rheumatology center?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether rheumatologists working in Canada's largest academic rheumatology center (University Health Network/Mount Sinai Hospital) adhere to the 2002 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Ten patients with RA seen between January 1 and December 30, 2005, were randomly selected from each rheumatologist. A standardized form was used to verify whether the following items were collected at each visit: (1) degree of joint pain, (2) duration of morning stiffness, (3) degree of fatigue, (4) number of tender/swollen joints, and (5) assessment of function. Items recommended for periodic assessment were also collected and included: (1) examination for joint damage, (2) erythrocyte sedimentation rate and/or C-reactive protein, and (3) radiographic assessment of joint damage (radiograph/magnetic resonance imaging).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty charts and 313 total visits met inclusion criteria. No rheumatologist consistently assessed each ACR item. Of the recommended items, tender and swollen joint counts and pain were most commonly assessed (95%, 95%, and 69%, respectively). Functional assessment, morning stiffness, and fatigue were least commonly reported (48%, 46%, and 33%, respectively). Items recommended for periodic assessment were not regularly recorded. There was a trend for the recommended items to be reported more regularly for new patients, patients taking a disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), and patients for whom a DMARD was added or increased in dosage.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatologists follow many but not all of the recommendations included in the revised ACR guidelines. The reasons underlying the noncompliance to some of the recommendations are not fully understood. In order to improve the adoption of future clinical practice guidelines, the ACR may have to plan specific dissemination and implementation strategies and fund studies to formally assess the effect of guideline use on clinical outcomes.

Rheumatoid arthritis association with theFCRL3 –169C polymorphism is restricted toPTPN22 1858T–homozygous individuals in a Canadian population

OBJECTIVE

Variants in genes encoding the Fc receptor-like 3 (FcRL-3) and the class II major histocompatibility complex (MHC) transactivator proteins have been associated with an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Japanese and Nordic populations, respectively. The aim of this study was to investigate these associations in a Canadian Caucasian cohort of RA cases and healthy controls.

METHODS

A total of 1,187 RA patients and 462 healthy controls were genotyped for FCRL3 and MHC2TA gene variants associated with RA. Epistasis between the FCRL3 -169C and the PTPN22 1858T variants was also examined.

RESULTS

An association was detected between RA and both the FCRL3 -169C allele (OR 1.19, P = 0.023) and the homozygous genotype (OR 1.41, P = 0.027), but association of the MHC2TA promoter region variant (-168G) with RA was not replicated. Stratification of the RA cohort by PTPN22 genotypes revealed the FCRL3 risk variant and RA association was stronger in the patient subgroup lacking PTPN22 1858T variants (P = 0.004) and was not detectable in the subgroup with PTPN22 1858T variants (P = 0.52). The PTPN22 association with RA was greater in the absence than in the presence of the FCRL3 -169C allele (P = 0.0008 versus P = 0.001). The PTPN22 1858T variant also increased the risk of autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) in the RA patients, whereas the FCRL3 risk variant was protective against AITD.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support an association of RA with an FCRL3 functional polymorphism and reveal that this association is stronger in the absence of PTPN22 risk genotypes. These findings support a genetic heterogeneity across RA populations, suggesting that both the FCRL3 and PTPN22 genes play roles in RA susceptibility, but in different individuals.

Infusion-related reactions to infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a clinical practice setting: relationship to dose, antihistamine pretreatment, and infusion number

OBJECTIVE

We describe infusion-related reactions to infliximab (during infusion or within 1 hour postinfusion) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated in a quaternary care center.

METHODS

We followed 113 patients for a mean of 60.6 +/- 28.9 weeks, obtaining 10.5 +/- 4.9 infusions per patient.

RESULTS

We observed 1183 infusions resulting in 104 infusion reactions (8.8%). All reactions resolved within several hours following cessation of the infusion and none was serious enough to warrant hospitalization. Reactions included allergic reactions (pruritus, urticaria) in 4.2% of infusions, cardiopulmonary (hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia) in 3.0%, and miscellaneous reactions (headache, nausea, vomiting) in 2.0%. Reactions occurred in 8.0% of 3 mg/kg infusions and in 10.3% of 5 mg/kg infusions. Reactions occurred in 13.2% of infusions that involved antihistamine pretreatment compared to only 7.5% of infusions that involved no pretreatment. At both infliximab doses, there was a similar frequency of infusion reactions in patients pretreated due to a previous infusion (12.6%) compared to those pretreated strictly based on infusion number (14.7%). A number of the reactions involving antihistamine pretreatment may be explained by known side effects of diphenhydramine, including headache, dizziness, nausea, and palpitations.

CONCLUSION

Infusion-related reactions to infliximab were infrequent, rarely severe, and easily manageable. The frequency of reactions was equivalent in patients treated with 3 mg/kg compared to 5 mg/kg. Reactions were significantly more frequent in infusions where patients were pretreated with the antihistamine diphenhydramine, compared to those not involving pretreatment.

Role of adalimumab in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

Adalimumab, a recent addition to the therapeutic armamentarium in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), has been evaluated in patients with early RA. The DE019 study, a double blind randomized placebo controlled trial of adalimumab given 20 mg once a week or 40 mg every other week demonstrated both clinical and radiographic efficacy. A subset analysis of patients with early disease revealed that early treatment with adalimumab may be more efficacious than therapy later in the course of disease, particularly with regard to radiographic progression. The findings support early aggressive intervention in RA.

Role of infliximab in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

Data has been generated that infliximab may be more effective when initiated earlier in the course of disease. A subset analysis of the Attract trial has demonstrated better efficacy of infliximab in reducing joint damage in an early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) population. Recently a randomized double-blind controlled trial revealed that infliximab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in an early RA population improved signs and symptoms as well as inhibition in radiographic progression compared with patients receiving infliximab or MTX alone. The possibility of withdrawing infliximab after induction of remission with a combination of infliximab and MTX has been shown in a small pilot trial. Taken together, the results support the early use of infliximab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe disease.

Comparison of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia, and to identify predictors of response to amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine.

METHODS

Two hundred eight patients who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia were entered into a 6-month prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial and were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, or placebo.

RESULTS

After 1 month, 21%, 12%, and 0% of the amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo patients, respectively, had significant clinical improvement (amitriptyline versus placebo P = 0.002, cyclobenzaprine versus placebo P = 0.02, amitriptyline versus cyclobenzaprine P not significant). These percentages increased to 36%, 33%, and 19%, respectively, at the 6-month assessment (P not significant). The nature and frequency of side effects reported by patients treated with amitriptyline and those reported by patients treated with cyclobenzaprine were similar. A normal Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profile at baseline was predictive of clinical improvement at the 1-month evaluation (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.2-9.0). However, neither the MMPI profile nor any of the demographic, clinical, or functional parameters evaluated at baseline predicted long-term response.

CONCLUSION

Our data confirm the short-term efficacy of amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine in a small percentage of patients with fibromyalgia. Long-term efficacy could not be demonstrated because of a higher-than-expected placebo response. Predictors of response to these drugs could not be determined.

The seal finger: an unusual case of monoarticular sepsis

We describe a case of monoarthritis in an Inuit seal hunter which progressed to joint destruction of the distal interphalangeal joint despite early and aggressive sequential antibiotic therapy with ampicillin, cloxacillin and penicillin G. In retrospect, had the entity of seal finger been diagnosed at the onset, appropriate antibiotic therapy with tetracycline may have prevented permanent joint damage.