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’.

/pdf/2010-rheumatoid-arthritis-classification-criteria-an-h6w7bcnbf6.pdf

2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.

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’.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/69/9/1580.full.pdf

2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.

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

admission. This proportion could already be greater in some parts of the country and may increase if referrals of cases of self-poisoning increase faster than the facilities for their assessment and management. The provision of social work and psychiatric expertise in casualty departments may be one means of preventing unnecessary medical admissions without risk to the patients. Dr Blake's and Dr Bramble's figures do not demonstrate, however, that any advantage would attach to medical teams taking over assessment from psychiatrists except that, by implication, assessments would be completed sooner by staff working on the ward full time. What the figures actually suggest is that if assessment of overdoses were left to house doctors there would be an increase in admissions to psychiatric units (by 19°U), outpatients (by 5O°'), and referrals to social services (by 140o). So for house doctors to assess overdoses would provide no economy for the psychiatric or social services. The study does not tell us what the consequences would have been for the six patients who the psychiatrists would have admitted but to whom the house doctors would have offered outpatient appointments. E J SALTER

Vitamin D deficiency.

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.

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

Rémission dans la polyarthrite rhumatoïde précoce sous traitements des fonds conventionnels. Résultats à deux ans de suivi de la cohorte marocaine El Ayachi

/pdf/clusterin-a-potential-pathophysiological-actor-in-rheumatoid-5fq32n9j9z.pdf

Clusterin, a potential pathophysiological actor in rheumatoid arthritis

Performances of the ASAS Axial Spondyloarthritis Criteria for Diagnosis and Classification Purposes in Patients Visiting a Rheumatologist Because of Chronic Back Pain : The Declic Study.

Objectives We report the open-label extension (OLE) of the GO-AHEAD study evaluating the long-term efficacy and safety of golimumab (GLM) in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Methods Patients (both GLM- and placebo [PBO]-treated in the double-blind phase) received GLM 50 mg every 4 weeks during the OLE (36-week treatment; additional 8-week safety follow-up; GLM/GLM and PBO/GLM groups). All patients who entered and received ≥1 dose of study treatment in the OLE were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. The primary efficacy evaluations were the proportions of patients achieving 20% and 40% improvement in the ASAS criteria (ASAS20 and ASAS40, respectively). Responders analyses were calculated using a non-responder imputation approach. Results Of 198 patients randomised, 189/198 (95.5%) entered the OLE; 174/198 patients (87.9%) completed all visits. Although the proportion of responders increased from weeks 16-52 in OLE in both GLM/GLM and PBO/GLM groups, the GLM/GLM group had a higher proportion of responders than the PBO/GLM group throughout the OLE from weeks 16-52 (ASAS20: 71.1% to 83.9% vs 40.0% to 75.0%, respectively; ASAS40: 56.7% to 76.3% vs 23.0% to 59.4%, respectively; ASAS partial remission: 33.0% to 53.8% and 18.0% to 45.8%). In the OLE, the overall incidence of AEs was lower in the GLM/GLM vs PBO/GLM groups (41.9% and 54.2%). Conclusions Sustained improvement in clinical efficacy was observed at 52 weeks in patients with nr-axSpA following GLM treatment. GLM was well tolerated and provided substantial long-term benefits to patients with nr-axSpA. (NCT01453725; registered on: October 18, 2011).

Maxime Dougados

Papers

Rémission dans la polyarthrite rhumatoïde précoce sous traitements des fonds conventionnels. Résultats à deux ans de suivi de la cohorte marocaine El Ayachi

Clusterin, a potential pathophysiological actor in rheumatoid arthritis

Performances of the ASAS Axial Spondyloarthritis Criteria for Diagnosis and Classification Purposes in Patients Visiting a Rheumatologist Because of Chronic Back Pain : The Declic Study.

Long-term Tolerability and Efficacy of Golimumab in Active Non-Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: Results From Open-Label Extension.

L’automédication en rhumatologie