Objective The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE. Methods The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. The SLICC group validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 new expert-rated patient scenarios. Results Seventeen criteria were identified. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70; P = 0.0082) and had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%; P < 0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%; P = 0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (62 versus 74; P = 0.24) and had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%; P < 0.0001) but lower specificity (84% versus 96%; P < 0.0001). Conclusion The new SLICC classification criteria performed well in a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. According to the SLICC rule for the classification of SLE, the patient must satisfy at least 4 criteria, including at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion OR the patient must have biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in the presence of antinuclear antibodies or antidouble-stranded DNA antibodies. (Less)

/pdf/derivation-and-validation-of-the-systemic-lupus-3ua8eoavoo.pdf

Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus.

Objective
To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods
We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.

Results
The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.

Conclusion
This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/art.39480

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

https://www.rheumatic.theclinics.com/article/S0889-857X(08)00041-0/pdf

Epidemiology of Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability and its incidence is rising due to increasing obesity and an ageing population. Risk factors can be divided into person-level factors, such as age, sex, obesity, genetics, race/ethnicity and diet, and joint-level factors including injury, malalignment and abnormal loading of the joints. The interaction of these risk factors is complex and provides a challenge to the managing physician. The purpose of this review is to illustrate how each of these factors interact together to instigate incident OA as well as to outline the need for ongoing epidemiologic studies for the future prevention of both incident and progressive OA. It is only by understanding the impact of this disease and the modifiable risk factors that we will be able to truly target public health prevention interventions appropriately.

The epidemiology of osteoarthritis

Objective
To estimate the prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia based on the latest nationally representative sample of US men and women (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES] 2007–2008).

Methods
Using data from 5,707 participants in NHANES 2007–2008, we estimated the prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia. During home interviews for NHANES 2007–2008, all participants were asked about a history of health professional– or physician-diagnosed gout. Our primary definition of hyperuricemia was a serum urate level of >7.0 mg/dl for men and >5.7 mg/dl for women. We explored potential secular trends in these estimates and their possible explanations by comparing them with estimates based on 18,825 participants in NHANES-III (1988–1994).

Results
The prevalence of gout among US adults in 2007–2008 was 3.9% (8.3 million individuals). The prevalence among men was 5.9% (6.1 million), and the prevalence among women was 2.0% (2.2 million). The mean serum urate levels were 6.14 mg/dl among men and 4.87 mg/dl among women, corresponding to hyperuricemia prevalences of 21.2% and 21.6%, respectively. These estimates were higher than those in NHANES-III, with differences of 1.2% in the prevalence of gout (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.6, 1.9), 0.15 mg/dl in the serum urate level (95% CI 0.07, 0.24), and 3.2% in the prevalence of hyperuricemia (95% CI 1.2, 5.2). These differences were substantially attenuated after adjusting for body mass index and/or hypertension.

Conclusion
These findings from nationally representative samples of US adults suggest that the prevalence of both gout and hyperuricemia remains substantial and may have increased over the past 2 decades, which is likely related to increasing frequencies of adiposity and hypertension.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.30520

Prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in the US general population: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2008.

OBJECTIVE
To provide a single source for the best available estimates of the US prevalence of and number of individuals affected by osteoarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis, gout, fibromyalgia, and carpal tunnel syndrome, as well as the symptoms of neck and back pain. A companion article (part I) addresses additional conditions.


METHODS
The National Arthritis Data Workgroup reviewed published analyses from available national surveys, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the National Health Interview Survey. Because data based on national population samples are unavailable for most specific rheumatic conditions, we derived estimates from published studies of smaller, defined populations. For specific conditions, the best available prevalence estimates were applied to the corresponding 2005 US population estimates from the Census Bureau, to estimate the number affected with each condition.


RESULTS
We estimated that among US adults, nearly 27 million have clinical osteoarthritis (up from the estimate of 21 million for 1995), 711,000 have polymyalgia rheumatica, 228,000 have giant cell arteritis, up to 3.0 million have had self-reported gout in the past year (up from the estimate of 2.1 million for 1995), 5.0 million have fibromyalgia, 4-10 million have carpal tunnel syndrome, 59 million have had low back pain in the past 3 months, and 30.1 million have had neck pain in the past 3 months.


CONCLUSION
Estimates for many specific rheumatic conditions rely on a few, small studies of uncertain generalizability to the US population. This report provides the best available prevalence estimates for the US, but for most specific conditions more studies generalizable to the US or addressing understudied populations are needed.

LM Arnold

Papers

National Arthritis Data Work-group. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II