Author
Daniel Aletaha
Other affiliations: National Institutes of Health, University of Vienna, University of Amsterdam ...read more
Bio: Daniel Aletaha is an academic researcher from Medical University of Vienna. The author has contributed to research in topics: Rheumatoid arthritis & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 74, co-authored 298 publications receiving 43215 citations. Previous affiliations of Daniel Aletaha include National Institutes of Health & University of Vienna.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Medical University of Vienna1, Boston University2, Arthritis Research UK3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of California, San Francisco5, Humboldt University of Berlin6, University of Toronto7, National Jewish Health8, Brigham and Women's Hospital9, Paris Descartes University10, University of Leeds11, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, University of Colorado Denver14, Leiden University15, University of California, San Diego16, University of Massachusetts Medical School17, University of Michigan18, University of Washington19, McGill University Health Centre20, University of Pittsburgh21, Ministry of Health (New Zealand)22, New York University23, University of Manchester24, University of Amsterdam25, University of Kansas26, Women's College Hospital27
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classifi cation criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classifi cation 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 infl ammatory 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, classifi cation as ‘defi nite RA’ is based on the confi rmed 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 classifi cation system redefi nes 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 defi ning 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’.
7,120 citations
Medical University of Vienna1, Boston University2, Arthritis Research UK3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of California, San Francisco5, Charité6, University of Toronto7, National Jewish Health8, Harvard University9, University of Paris10, University of Leeds11, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, University of Colorado Denver14, Leiden University15, University of California, San Diego16, University of Massachusetts Medical School17, University of Michigan18, University of Washington19, McGill University20, University of Pittsburgh21, Ministry of Health (New Zealand)22, New York University23, University of Manchester24, University of Amsterdam25
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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’.
5,964 citations
Medical University of Vienna1, University of Amsterdam2, Leiden University Medical Center3, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust4, Chapel Allerton Hospital5, Humboldt State University6, Oregon Health & Science University7, Utrecht University8, VU University Medical Center9, University of Montpellier10, University of Belgrade11, Erasmus University Rotterdam12, University of Paris-Sud13, Charles University in Prague14, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre15, University of Cologne16, Weston Education Centre17, Tufts University18
TL;DR: These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
Abstract: In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at
4,730 citations
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: Recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.
Abstract: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.
3,485 citations
Utrecht University1, Leiden University2, University of Crete3, Humboldt University of Berlin4, University of Genoa5, University of Paris6, University of Leeds7, Hospital for Special Surgery8, University of Santiago de Compostela9, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg10, University of Toronto11, University of Glasgow12, Autonomous University of Madrid13
TL;DR: The 10 recommendations are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.
Abstract: Aiming at therapeutic targets has reduced the risk of organ failure in many diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Such targets have not been defined for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
1,676 citations
Cited by
More filters
Medical University of Vienna1, Boston University2, Arthritis Research UK3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of California, San Francisco5, Humboldt University of Berlin6, University of Toronto7, National Jewish Health8, Brigham and Women's Hospital9, Paris Descartes University10, University of Leeds11, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, University of Colorado Denver14, Leiden University15, University of California, San Diego16, University of Massachusetts Medical School17, University of Michigan18, University of Washington19, McGill University Health Centre20, University of Pittsburgh21, Ministry of Health (New Zealand)22, New York University23, University of Manchester24, University of Amsterdam25, University of Kansas26, Women's College Hospital27
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classifi cation criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classifi cation 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 infl ammatory 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, classifi cation as ‘defi nite RA’ is based on the confi rmed 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 classifi cation system redefi nes 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 defi ning 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’.
7,120 citations
Medical University of Vienna1, Boston University2, Arthritis Research UK3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of California, San Francisco5, Charité6, University of Toronto7, National Jewish Health8, Harvard University9, University of Paris10, University of Leeds11, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, University of Colorado Denver14, Leiden University15, University of California, San Diego16, University of Massachusetts Medical School17, University of Michigan18, University of Washington19, McGill University20, University of Pittsburgh21, Ministry of Health (New Zealand)22, New York University23, University of Manchester24, University of Amsterdam25
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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’.
5,964 citations
Medical University of Vienna1, University of Amsterdam2, Leiden University Medical Center3, Chapel Allerton Hospital4, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust5, Humboldt State University6, Oregon Health & Science University7, Utrecht University8, VU University Medical Center9, University of Montpellier10, University of Belgrade11, Erasmus University Rotterdam12, University of Paris-Sud13, Charles University in Prague14, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre15, University of Cologne16, Weston Education Centre17, Tufts University18
TL;DR: These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
Abstract: In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at
4,730 citations
TL;DR: The increased understanding of the immune mechanisms of rheumatoid arthritis has led to the development of a considerable number of new therapeutic agents that alter the natural history of the disease and reduce mortality.
Abstract: The increased understanding of the immune mechanisms of rheumatoid arthritis has led to the development of a considerable number of new therapeutic agents that alter the natural history of the disease and reduce mortality.
3,975 citations
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: Recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.
Abstract: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.
3,485 citations