1
|
Fernández-Ávila DG, Patiño-Hernández D, Moreno-Luna S, Brance L, Arbeláez Á, Vilar AC, Lozada C, Ríos C, Toro C, Ramírez C, Pons-Estel G, Ugarte-Gil M, Narváez M, Albanese M, Roa O, Ruiz O, Burgos P, Xavier R, Fuentes Y, Soriano E. Development of a novel clinimetric tool: PAtient Reported Disease Activity Index in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PARDAI-RA) by PANLAR, for the assessment of patients living with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2024; 43:1277-1285. [PMID: 38355831 PMCID: PMC10944809 DOI: 10.1007/s10067-024-06868-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Revised: 12/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical experience has shown that a single measure is not sufficient to assess disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Various clinimetric tools are necessary to address the many clinical situations that can arise. METHODS In order to develop a comprehensive measurement tool, the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology searched for the most frequent measures of disease activity applied in RA by means of a semi-systematic review of the available literature. RESULTS We found that the most frequently reported measures of disease activity were the 28-joint Disease Activity Score, C-reactive protein, and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, followed by patient-reported measures of pain and stiffness and many other composite indices and patient-reported outcome measures. The most frequent physician-reported sign of disease was the swollen joint count, and the most frequently self-reported feature was the increase in disease activity or flares. CONCLUSION In this article, we present a new clinimetric tool developed based on expert consensus and on data retrieved from our search. Disease activity can be better assessed by combining various data sources, such as clinical, laboratory, and self-reported outcomes. These variables were included in our novel clinimetric tool. Key Points • The goal of treatment of RA is to achieve the best possible control of inflammation, or even remission; therefore, disease management should include systematic and regular evaluation of inflammation and health status. • Clinimetric tools evaluate a series of variables (e.g., symptoms, functional capacity, disease severity, quality of life, disease progression) and can reveal substantial prognostic and therapeutic differences between patients. • Our clinimetric tool, which is based on a combination of data (e.g., clinical variables, laboratory results, PROMs), can play a relevant role in patient assessment and care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel G Fernández-Ávila
- Rheumatology Division, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia.
| | | | | | - Lorena Brance
- Rheumatology Division, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
| | | | | | - Carlos Lozada
- Rheumatology Division, University of Miami, Coral Gables, USA
| | - Carlos Ríos
- Universidad de Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Guayaquil, Ecuador
| | - Carlos Toro
- Centro de Referencia en Osteoporosis y Reumatología, Cali, Colombia
| | | | - Guillermo Pons-Estel
- Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas (GO-CREAR), Rosario, Argentina
| | | | | | | | - Orlando Roa
- Rheumatology Division Keralty, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Oscar Ruiz
- Rheumatology Division Keralty, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Paula Burgos
- Clinic Immunology and Rheumatology Department, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - Ricardo Xavier
- Rheumatology Service Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | | | - Enrique Soriano
- Rheumatology Division, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
[Innovative strategies for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]. Z Rheumatol 2022; 81:118-124. [PMID: 34997270 DOI: 10.1007/s00393-021-01144-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/05/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
Besides excellent guidelines and newly developed highly effective drugs, evidence-based strategic use of these new drugs has especially contributed to enormous advances in rheumatoid arthritis treatment, apparent especially since 2000. Currently, the treat-to-target (T2T) strategy has proven to be the most successful in several studies and systematic reviews. The target is to achieve remission, which should be reached and sustained for an optimal outcome (i.e. stable over a long time period). If the initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment fails, the best strategy for continuing treatment is controversial, with swap or switch being open to debate (change within a class of drugs or change in the mechanism of action). Recent studies seem to indicate that switching to another mechanism of action is the most successful approach. A hotly discussed topic is the question whether DMARD treatment can or should be tapered when sustained remission has been achieved? Many patients wish for a reduction of drugs in cases of stable remission; however, the stable disease control might become destabilized by tapering. The main priority is the reduction or tapering of glucocorticoid treatment. When the decision for reduction of DMARD treatment is made together with the patient, a complete cessation bears a high risk of a flare, therefore, a careful step by step reduction of DMARD treatment should be preferred. In the case of a running combination, the question whether the conventional DMARD (mostly methotrexate), the biological (b)DMARD or targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD should be reduced first, must be decided on an individual basis. Most patients prefer to first reduce methotrexate and transfer to a monotherapy.
Collapse
|