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

/pdf/eular-recommendations-for-the-management-of-rheumatoid-4fujp4paik.pdf

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

Importance Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occurs in about 5 per 1000 people and can lead to severe joint damage and disability. Significant progress has been made over the past 2 decades regarding understanding of disease pathophysiology, optimal outcome measures, and effective treatment strategies, including the recognition of the importance of diagnosing and treating RA early. Observations Early diagnosis and treatment of RA can avert or substantially slow progression of joint damage in up to 90% of patients, thereby preventing irreversible disability. The development of novel instruments to measure disease activity and identify the presence or absence of remission have facilitated new treatment strategies to arrest RA before joints are damaged irreversibly. Outcomes have been improved by recognizing the benefits of early diagnosis and early therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The treatment target is remission or a state of at least low disease activity, which should be attained within 6 months. Methotrexate is first-line therapy and should be prescribed at an optimal dose of 25 mg weekly and in combination with glucocorticoids; 40% to 50% of patients reach remission or at least low disease activity with this regimen. If this treatment fails, sequential application of targeted therapies, such as biologic agents (eg, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitors) or Janus kinase inhibitors in combination with methotrexate, have allowed up to 75% of these patients to reach the treatment target over time. New therapies have been developed in response to new pathogenetic findings. The costs of some therapies are considerable, but these costs are decreasing with the advent of biosimilar drugs (drugs essentially identical to the original biologic drugs but usually available at lower cost). Conclusions and relevance Scientific advances have improved therapies that prevent progression of irreversible joint damage in up to 90% of patients with RA. Early treatment with methotrexate plus glucocorticoids and subsequently with other DMARDs, such as inhibitors of TNF, IL-6, or Janus kinases, improves outcomes and prevents RA-related disability. A treat-to-target strategy aimed at reducing disease activity by at least 50% within 3 months and achieving remission or low disease activity within 6 months, with sequential drug treatment if needed, can prevent RA-related disability.

Diagnosis and Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Review.

Background Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations. Methods A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated. Results The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used. Conclusions These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/75/3/499.full.pdf

European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update.

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field.

/pdf/treating-axial-spondyloarthritis-and-peripheral-frnp1z9h5o.pdf

Treating axial spondyloarthritis and peripheral spondyloarthritis, especially psoriatic arthritis, to target: 2017 update of recommendations by an international task force

Objectives Since the 2007 recommendations for the management of early arthritis have been presented, considerable research has been published in the field of early arthritis, mandating an update of the 2007 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of early arthritis. Methods In accordance with the 2014 EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, the expert committee pursued an approach that was based on evidence in the literature and on expert opinion. The committee involved 20 rheumatologists, 2 patients and 1 healthcare professional representing 12 European countries. The group defined the focus of the expert committee and target population, formulated a definition of 'management' and selected the research questions. A systematic literature research (SLR) was performed by two fellows with the help of a skilled librarian. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the SLR. For each recommendation, the categories of evidence were identified, the strength of recommendations was derived and the level of agreement was determined through a voting process. Results The updated recommendations comprise 3 overarching principles and 12 recommendations for managing early arthritis. The selected statements involve the recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognostication, treatment (information, education, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions), monitoring and strategy. Eighteen items were identified as relevant for future research. Conclusions These recommendations provide rheumatologists, general practitioners, healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders with an updated EULAR consensus on the entire management of early arthritis.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/76/6/948.full.pdf

2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis

Background The Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) is a valid and discriminative tool. Definitions of disease activity states and therapeutic response are still missing. We derived such criteria for the DAPSA. Methods We retrieved 30 patient profiles from an observational database including joint counts, patient pain and global activity ratings and C-reactive protein (CRP) and carried out a survey among experts to classify patients into remission (REM), low (LDA), moderate (MDA) or high (HDA) disease activity. Based on the distributions of DAPSA in each of these expert-assigned states we defined the cutpoints between groups. We performed similar analyses evaluating a clinical score (cDAPSA), omitting CRP. To define minor, moderate and major treatment response, we used Cohen9s Kappa statistics and analysed agreement of DAPSA percentage change with ACR20/50/70-response in three randomised controlled trials. Results Our survey yielded a response rate of 75% (n=33). Mean DAPSA differed significantly between patients classified as REM, LDA, MDA or HDA (p 4 and ≤14 for LDA, >14 and ≤28 for MDA and >28 for HDA. We observed best agreement with ACR20/50/70-response at DAPSA changes of 50/75/85%, reflecting minor, moderate and major improvement. Conclusions The DAPSA constitutes a disease-specific, validated and feasible tool for PsA assessment. In this study, we provide criteria for disease activity states and treatment response. They are based on an international expert survey, and show good performance in clinical trials and observational data.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/75/5/811.full.pdf

Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): defining remission and treatment success using the DAPSA score

Background Rheumatoid factor (RF) is prototypic for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and serves diagnostic and prognostic purposes. RF is associated with joint destruction, but the role of disease activity as a potential mediator of these effects has not been clearly elucidated yet. Objective To investigate if higher radiographic progression (Sharp score, ΔTSS) in RF+ patients is dependent or independent of disease activity. Methods The authors performed a cross-sectional multivariate analysis at baseline and a matched cohort study in patients from five RA clinical trials. The authors pooled methotrexate treatment arms and compared ΔTSS in RF+ and RF− patients before and after matching for other associated variables. Results Among 686 patients, 124 were RF− and 562 RF+, 343 having high (>160 U/ml) RF. ΔTSS was 1.03±5.83, 3.23±8.10 and 3.58±8.18 (p Conclusions The data reveal that damage progression in seropositive RA patients is related to higher levels of disease activity and to independent effects of RF, particularly on bone damage. This calls for consideration of RF status irrespective of disease activity.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/early/2012/07/12/annrheumdis-2012-201517.full.pdf

Rheumatoid factor determines structural progression of rheumatoid arthritis dependent and independent of disease activity.

Although the prognostic value of rheumatoid factor (RF) and autoantibodies against citrullinated proteins (ACPAs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well established, their association with RA disease activity remains unclear. Here, we investigate this association in a large study using data from clinical trials. We used baseline data from four recent randomized controlled clinical trials of RA. We investigated individual and composite measures of disease activity. The relationship of RF and ACPAs with these measures was investigated by using stratified analysis (comparing four groups of patients according to the presence or absence of RF and ACPAs) and matched analysis (disease activity levels compared between patients negative and patients highly positive for one autoantibody who were matched for levels of the other autoantibody as well as for age, gender, and duration of RA). A total of 2118 patients were analysed in the different cohorts. In the stratified analysis, RF+ patients, regardless of ACPA status, had the highest levels of disease activity, whereas ACPA+ patients had disease activity that was similar to or lower than that of ACPA− patients, both in the presence and in the absence of RF. When matched for ACPA levels, patients with highly positive RF had significantly higher disease activity for all composite indices compared with patients who were RF− (P = 0.0067), whereas ACPA-highly-positive and ACPA-negative patients matched for RF levels had similar disease activity, again even with the tendency toward lower disease activity for ACPA+ patients (P = 0.054). The data presented suggest that the presence of RF has a clear association with higher levels of disease activity but that the presence of ACPAs has not and even appears to be associated with lower disease activity.

/pdf/rheumatoid-factor-not-antibodies-against-citrullinated-48btoho4ww.pdf

Rheumatoid factor, not antibodies against citrullinated proteins, is associated with baseline disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

Background Recently, disease activity states were developed for the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA). Here, we assess if different DAPSA disease activity states are associated with different degrees of functional impairment and different extents of joint damage progression in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods We used data from two pivotal trials of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in PsA (IMPACT II and GO-REVEAL) and identified patients in DAPSA remission (REM, ≤4), and low, moderate or high disease activity (LDA, ≤14; MDA, ≤28; HDA, >28) at 6 months. Across these groups we compared the functional scores (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, HAQ and physical component scale of the Short Form-36, PCS), and 1-year structural progression (PsA-modified Sharp/van der Heijde Score). Results We identified 310 from GO-REVEAL and 130 from IMPACT II, with a mean (SD) baseline DAPSA of 48.8 (26.4) and 44.6 (17.9), respectively. HAQ scores increased across patients groups in the four DAPSA disease activity states, while PCS decreased (p Conclusions Disease activity states of the PsA specific DAPSA score are highly valid for future use as endpoints in clinical trials or as targets in clinical practice. Trial registration numbers IMPACT 2: NCT02152254; GO-REVEAL: NCT00265096.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/76/2/418.full.pdf

Disease activity states of the DAPSA, a psoriatic arthritis specific instrument, are valid against functional status and structural progression

Background Treat-to-target (T2T) is a widely accepted management strategy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with a key decision point at 3 months after treatment initiation. At this time point, it remains unclear which patients will benefit from treatment adaptation or from continuation of existing treatment. Methods We performed a pooled analysis of patient-level clinical trial data of patients with RA. We used a diagnostic testing methodology and a probabilistic approach employing logistic regression to investigate which levels of response at 3 months can inform treatment decisions in regard to achieving the target at 6 months. Results To be at least 80% sensitive for achieving the low disease activity (LDA) target at 6 months, a change at 3 months in Simplified Disease Activity Index/Clinical Disease Activity Index (SDAI or CDAI) of 58% needs to be observed at 3 months. Higher changes are needed to sensitively predict remission (REM). Not reaching the (minor) SDAI 50% response level is afflicted with very low negative likelihood ratios (LRs) (0.28 for LDA and 0.07 for REM at 6 months). Experiencing (major) SDAI 85% response has substantial positive LRs of 9.2 for reaching LDA and 6.2 for reaching REM at 6 months. In logistic regression, the change at 3 months is significantly associated with reaching of the target at 6 months. Conclusions The 3-month time point is a critical decision point. Not achieving minor responses at 3 months makes reaching of the treatment target at 6 months highly unlikely, while reaching major responses is highly predictive of reaching the treatment target.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/75/8/1479.full.pdf

Farideh Alasti

Papers

Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): defining remission and treatment success using the DAPSA score

Rheumatoid factor determines structural progression of rheumatoid arthritis dependent and independent of disease activity.

Rheumatoid factor, not antibodies against citrullinated proteins, is associated with baseline disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

Disease activity states of the DAPSA, a psoriatic arthritis specific instrument, are valid against functional status and structural progression

Optimisation of a treat-to-target approach in rheumatoid arthritis: strategies for the 3-month time point