Joachim Listing

Bio: Joachim Listing is an academic researcher from Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Ankylosing spondylitis & BASDAI. The author has an hindex of 79, co-authored 190 publications receiving 23362 citations. Previous affiliations of Joachim Listing include Charité & University of Manchester.

The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection

Abstract: Objective: To validate and refine two sets of candidate criteria for the classification/diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods: All Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) members were invited to include consecutively new patients with chronic (⩾3 months) back pain of unknown origin that began before 45 years of age. The candidate criteria were first tested in the entire cohort of 649 patients from 25 centres, and then refined in a random selection of 40% of cases and thereafter validated in the remaining 60%. Results: Upon diagnostic work-up, axial SpA was diagnosed in 60.2% of the cohort. Of these, 70% did not fulfil modified New York criteria and, therefore, were classified as having “non-radiographic” axial SpA. Refinement of the candidate criteria resulted in new ASAS classification criteria that are defined as: the presence of sacroiliitis by radiography or by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus at least one SpA feature (“imaging arm”) or the presence of HLA-B27 plus at least two SpA features (“clinical arm”). The sensitivity and specificity of the entire set of the new criteria were 82.9% and 84.4%, and for the imaging arm alone 66.2% and 97.3%, respectively. The specificity of the new criteria was much better than that of the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group criteria modified for MRI (sensitivity 85.1%, specificity 65.1%) and slightly better than that of the modified Amor criteria (sensitivity 82.9, specificity 77.5%). Conclusion: The new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA can reliably classify patients for clinical studies and may help rheumatologists in clinical practice in diagnosing axial SpA in those with chronic back pain. Trial registration number: NCT00328068.

American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Definition of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis for Clinical Trials

Abstract: Objective Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used defi nition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a defi nition. Methods A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecifi ed analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent defi nition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to defi ne remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate defi nitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as defi nitions using disease activity indexes. To select a defi nition of remission, trial data were analysed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. Results Survey results for the defi nition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (eg, tender and swollen joint counts, C reactive protein (CRP) level, and global assessments on a 0–10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patientreported measure. Examination of 2-year follow-up data suggested that many candidate defi nitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score–based measures of remission did not

The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part I): classification of paper patients by expert opinion including uncertainty appraisal

Abstract: Objective: Non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is characterised by a lack of definitive radiographic sacroiliitis and is considered an early stage of ankylosing spondylitis. The objective of this study was to develop candidate classification criteria for axial SpA that include patients with but also without radiographic sacroiliitis. Methods: Seventy-one patients with possible axial SpA, most of whom were lacking definite radiographic sacroiliitis, were reviewed as “paper patients” by 20 experts from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS). Unequivocally classifiable patients were identified based on the aggregate expert opinion in conjunction with the expert-reported level of certainty of their judgement. Draft criteria for axial SpA were formulated and tested using classifiable patients. Results: Active sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (odds ratio 45, 95% CI 5.3 to 383; p x rays in conjunction with one SpA feature or, if sacroilitiis is absent, in the presence of at least three SpA features. In a second set of candidate criteria, inflammatory back pain is obligatory in the clinical arm (sensitivity 86.1%; specificity 94.7%). Conclusion: The ASAS group has developed candidate criteria for the classification of axial SpA that include patients without radiographic sacroiliitis. The candidate criteria need to be validated in an independent international study.

Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic agents.

Abstract: Objective To estimate the incidence rates of serious and nonserious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who start treatment with a biologic agent, and to compare these rates with those in patients with RA who receive conventional treatment Methods Patients enrolled in the German biologics register between May 2001 and September 2003 were included Treating rheumatologists assessed adverse events and serious adverse events All adverse events and serious adverse events experienced within 12 months after study entry were analyzed Propensity score methods were applied to estimate which part of a rate increase was likely to be attributable to differences in patient characteristics Results Data were available for 512 patients receiving etanercept, 346 patients receiving infliximab, 70 patients receiving anakinra, and 601 control patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs The total number of adverse events per 100 patient-years was 226 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 187–272) among patients receiving etanercept, 283 (95% CI 231–347) among patients receiving infliximab, and 68 (95% CI 50–94) among controls (P < 00001) Significant differences in the rate of serious adverse events were also observed For patients receiving etanercept, those receiving infliximab, and controls, the total numbers of serious adverse events per 100 patient-years were 64 (95% CI 45–91), 62 (95% CI 40–95), and 23 (95% CI 13–39), respectively (P = 00016) After adjusting for differences in the case patient mix, the relative risks of serious adverse events were 22 (95% CI 09–54) for patients receiving etanercept and 21 (95% CI 08–55) for patients receiving infliximab, compared with controls Conclusion Patients treated with biologic agents have a higher a priori risk of infection However, our data suggest that this risk is increased by treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

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

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

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

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.

The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection

Abstract: Objective: To validate and refine two sets of candidate criteria for the classification/diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods: All Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) members were invited to include consecutively new patients with chronic (⩾3 months) back pain of unknown origin that began before 45 years of age. The candidate criteria were first tested in the entire cohort of 649 patients from 25 centres, and then refined in a random selection of 40% of cases and thereafter validated in the remaining 60%. Results: Upon diagnostic work-up, axial SpA was diagnosed in 60.2% of the cohort. Of these, 70% did not fulfil modified New York criteria and, therefore, were classified as having “non-radiographic” axial SpA. Refinement of the candidate criteria resulted in new ASAS classification criteria that are defined as: the presence of sacroiliitis by radiography or by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus at least one SpA feature (“imaging arm”) or the presence of HLA-B27 plus at least two SpA features (“clinical arm”). The sensitivity and specificity of the entire set of the new criteria were 82.9% and 84.4%, and for the imaging arm alone 66.2% and 97.3%, respectively. The specificity of the new criteria was much better than that of the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group criteria modified for MRI (sensitivity 85.1%, specificity 65.1%) and slightly better than that of the modified Amor criteria (sensitivity 82.9, specificity 77.5%). Conclusion: The new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA can reliably classify patients for clinical studies and may help rheumatologists in clinical practice in diagnosing axial SpA in those with chronic back pain. Trial registration number: NCT00328068.

[The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement].

Abstract: Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society

Abstract: Recommendation 1: Clinicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis, or back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause. The history should include assessment of psychosocial risk factors, which predict risk for chronic disabling back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: Clinicians should not routinely obtain imaging or other diagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: Clinicians should perform diagnostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic deficits are present or when serious underlying conditions are suspected on the basis of history and physical examination (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: Clinicians should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with magnetic resonance imaging (preferred) or computed tomography only if they are potential candidates for surgery or epidural steroid injection (for suspected radiculopathy) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 5: Clinicians should provide patients with evidence-based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about effective self-care options (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 6: For patients with low back pain, clinicians should consider the use of medications with proven benefits in conjunction with back care information and self-care. Clinicians should assess severity of baseline pain and functional deficits, potential benefits, risks, and relative lack of long-term efficacy and safety data before initiating therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For most patients, first-line medication options are acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Recommendation 7: For patients who do not improve with selfcare options, clinicians should consider the addition of nonpharmacologic therapy with proven benefits—for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation; for chronic or subacute low back pain, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, spinal manipulation, yoga, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or progressive relaxation (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).