Author
Nemanja Damjanov
Bio: Nemanja Damjanov is an academic researcher from University of Belgrade. The author has contributed to research in topics: Rheumatoid arthritis & Arthritis. The author has an hindex of 36, co-authored 185 publications receiving 10523 citations.
Topics: Rheumatoid arthritis, Arthritis, Etanercept, Rheumatology, Placebo
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
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
University of Basel1, Radboud University Nijmegen2, University of Padua3, Complutense University of Madrid4, University of Paris5, University of Zurich6, University of Bari7, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences8, University of Florence9, Russian Academy10, Rambam Health Care Campus11, University of Regensburg12, Charité13, University of the Witwatersrand14, Johns Hopkins University15, University of Coimbra16, University of Verona17, Lund University18, University of Ljubljana19, Utrecht University20, University of Pécs21, Medical University of Vienna22, University of Debrecen23, Sapienza University of Rome24, University of Geneva25, University of Silesia in Katowice26, University College London27, University of Tübingen28, Military Medical Academy29, Lille University of Science and Technology30, University of Michigan31, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy32, Charles University in Prague33, University of Zagreb34
TL;DR: Disease-related causes, in particular pulmonary fibrosis, PAH and cardiac causes, accounted for the majority of deaths in SSc.
Abstract: Objectives To determine the causes and predictors of mortality in systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods Patients with SSc (n=5860) fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology criteria and prospectively followed in the EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) cohort were analysed. EUSTAR centres completed a structured questionnaire on cause of death and comorbidities. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyse survival in SSc subgroups and to identify predictors of mortality. Results Questionnaires were obtained on 234 of 284 fatalities. 55% of deaths were attributed directly to SSc and 41% to non-SSc causes; in 4% the cause of death was not assigned. Of the SSc-related deaths, 35% were attributed to pulmonary fibrosis, 26% to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and 26% to cardiac causes (mainly heart failure and arrhythmias). Among the non-SSc-related causes, infections (33%) and malignancies (31%) were followed by cardiovascular causes (29%). Of the non-SSc-related fatalities, 25% died of causes in which SSc-related complications may have participated (pneumonia, sepsis and gastrointestinal haemorrhage). Independent risk factors for mortality and their HR were: proteinuria (HR 3.34), the presence of PAH based on echocardiography (HR 2.02), pulmonary restriction (forced vital capacity below 80% of normal, HR 1.64), dyspnoea above New York Heart Association class II (HR 1.61), diffusing capacity of the lung (HR 1.20 per 10% decrease), patient age at onset of Raynaud's phenomenon (HR 1.30 per 10 years) and the modified Rodnan skin score (HR 1.20 per 10 score points). Conclusion Disease-related causes, in particular pulmonary fibrosis, PAH and cardiac causes, accounted for the majority of deaths in SSc.
1,010 citations
University of Paris1, Medical University of Vienna2, Leiden University3, Paris Descartes University4, University of Leeds5, Ruhr University Bochum6, Charité7, University College Dublin8, Halmstad University9, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven10, University of Münster11, University of Glasgow12, Charles University in Prague13, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg14, Ghent University Hospital15
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.
802 citations
Medical University of Białystok1, Radboud University Nijmegen2, Paris Descartes University3, University of Zurich4, Charité5, University of California, Los Angeles6, University of Pécs7, University of Belgrade8, University of Leeds9, University College London10, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg11, University of Giessen12, University of Florence13, University of Cologne14, University of Michigan15, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre16, Utrecht University17, University of Lübeck18, Medical University of South Carolina19, Ghent University20, Ghent University Hospital21, University of Basel22, Johns Hopkins University23, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli24, University of Padua25
TL;DR: In this article, the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) developed a set of recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) with attention to new therapeutic questions.
Abstract: The aim was to update the 2009 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc), with attention to new therapeutic questions. Update of the previous treatment recommendations was performed according to EULAR standard operating procedures. The task force consisted of 32 SSc clinical experts from Europe and the USA, 2 patients nominated by the pan-European patient association for SSc (Federation of European Scleroderma Associations (FESCA)), a clinical epidemiologist and 2 research fellows. All centres from the EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Research group were invited to submit and select clinical questions concerning SSc treatment using a Delphi approach. Accordingly, 46 clinical questions addressing 26 different interventions were selected for systematic literature review. The new recommendations were based on the available evidence and developed in a consensus meeting with clinical experts and patients. The procedure resulted in 16 recommendations being developed (instead of 14 in 2009) that address treatment of several SSc-related organ complications: Raynaud's phenomenon (RP), digital ulcers (DUs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), skin and lung disease, scleroderma renal crisis and gastrointestinal involvement. Compared with the 2009 recommendations, the 2016 recommendations include phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors for the treatment of SSc-related RP and DUs, riociguat, new aspects for endothelin receptor antagonists, prostacyclin analogues and PDE-5 inhibitors for SSc-related PAH. New recommendations regarding the use of fluoxetine for SSc-related RP and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for selected patients with rapidly progressive SSc were also added. In addition, several comments regarding other treatments addressed in clinical questions and suggestions for the SSc research agenda were formulated. These updated data-derived and consensus-derived recommendations will help rheumatologists to manage patients with SSc in an evidence-based way. These recommendations also give directions for future clinical research in SSc.
708 citations
TL;DR: The updated recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological management of PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.
Abstract: Objective To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review was followed by a consensus meeting to develop this update involving 28 international taskforce members in May 2019. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined. Results The updated recommendations comprise 6 overarching principles and 12 recommendations. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA and diversity of both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations; the need for collaborative management and shared decision-making is highlighted. The recommendations provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local glucocorticoid injections are proposed as initial therapy; for patients with arthritis and poor prognostic factors, such as polyarthritis or monoarthritis/oligoarthritis accompanied by factors such as dactylitis or joint damage, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17A or IL-12/23 should be initiated, taking into account skin involvement if relevant. If axial disease predominates, a TNF inhibitor or IL-17A inhibitor should be started as first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is addressed primarily after bDMARD failure. Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition is proposed for patients in whom these other drugs are inappropriate, generally in the context of mild disease. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are addressed. Conclusion These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological management of PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.
492 citations
Cited by
More filters
Imperial College London1, National Institutes of Health2, Boston Children's Hospital3, University of Alberta4, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital5, University of Sydney6, University of Giessen7, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre8, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign9, Medical University of Graz10, Vanderbilt University Medical Center11, University of São Paulo12
TL;DR: In this paper, a clinical classification of pulmonary hypertension (PH) was established, categorizing PH into groups which share similar pathological and hemodynamic characteristics and therapeutic approaches, and the main change was to withdraw persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) from Group 1 because this entity carries more differences than similarities with other PAH subgroups.
4,135 citations
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre1, University of Michigan2, Radboud University Nijmegen3, University of Toronto4, McGill University5, University of Basel6, University of Florence7, Auckland City Hospital8, University of Pittsburgh9, Charité10, University of California, Los Angeles11, University College London12, University of Zurich13, University of Paris14, Marche Polytechnic University15, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston16, Newcastle University17, University of Pécs18, Georgetown University19, Istanbul University20, Medical University of Białystok21, University of Giessen22, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli23, University College Dublin24, Stanford University25, National Health Service26, University of Colorado Denver27, Medical College of Wisconsin28, University of Alabama at Birmingham29, University of Manchester30, Rutgers University31, Thomas Jefferson University32, University of Toledo33, Amgen34, Boston University35, Medical University of South Carolina36, University of Pennsylvania37, Northwestern University38
TL;DR: The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The 1980 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) lack sensitivity for early SSc and limited cutaneous SSc. The present work, by a joint committee of the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), was undertaken for the purpose of developing new classification criteria for SSc. METHODS: Using consensus methods, 23 candidate items were arranged in a multicriteria additive point system with a threshold to classify cases as SSc. The classification system was reduced by clustering items and simplifying weights. The system was tested by 1) determining specificity and sensitivity in SSc cases and controls with scleroderma-like disorders, and 2) validating against the combined view of a group of experts on a set of cases with or without SSc. RESULTS: It was determined that skin thickening of the fingers extending proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joints is sufficient for the patient to be classified as having SSc; if that is not present, 7 additive items apply, with varying weights for each: skin thickening of the fingers, fingertip lesions, telangiectasia, abnormal nailfold capillaries, interstitial lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension, Raynaud's phenomenon, and SSc-related autoantibodies. Sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were, respectively, 0.91 and 0.92 for the new classification criteria and 0.75 and 0.72 for the 1980 ACR classification criteria. All selected cases were classified in accordance with consensus-based expert opinion. All cases classified as SSc according to the 1980 ACR criteria were classified as SSc with the new criteria, and several additional cases were now considered to be SSc. CONCLUSION: The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria for SSc and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.
2,743 citations
Radboud University Nijmegen1, University of Michigan2, University of Toronto3, McGill University4, University of Basel5, University of Florence6, Auckland City Hospital7, University of Pittsburgh8, Complutense University of Madrid9, Charité10, University of California, Los Angeles11, University College London12, University of Zurich13, University of Paris14, Marche Polytechnic University15, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston16, Newcastle University17, University of Pécs18, Georgetown University19, Istanbul University20, Medical University of Białystok21, University of Giessen22, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli23, University College Dublin24, Stanford University25, Amgen26, University of Colorado Denver27, Medical College of Wisconsin28, University of Alabama at Birmingham29, University of Manchester30, National Health Service31, Rutgers University32, Thomas Jefferson University33, University of Toledo34, University of Pennsylvania35, Boston University36, Medical University of South Carolina37, Northwestern University38, University of Western Ontario39
TL;DR: The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.
Abstract: Objective The 1980 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) lack sensitivity for early SSc and limited cutaneous SSc. The present work, by a joint committee of the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), was undertaken for the purpose of developing new classification criteria for SSc. Methods Using consensus methods, 23 candidate items were arranged in a multicriteria additive point system with a threshold to classify cases as SSc. The classification system was reduced by clustering items and simplifying weights. The system was tested by (1) determining specificity and sensitivity in SSc cases and controls with scleroderma-like disorders, and (2) validating against the combined view of a group of experts on a set of cases with or without SSc. Results It was determined that skin thickening of the fingers extending proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joints is sufficient for the patient to be classified as having SSc; if that is not present, seven additive items apply, with varying weights for each: skin thickening of the fingers, fingertip lesions, telangiectasia, abnormal nailfold capillaries, interstitial lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension, Raynaud9s phenomenon, and SSc-related autoantibodies. Sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were, respectively, 0.91 and 0.92 for the new classification criteria and 0.75 and 0.72 for the 1980 ACR classification criteria. All selected cases were classified in accordance with consensus-based expert opinion. All cases classified as SSc according to the 1980 ACR criteria were classified as SSc with the new criteria, and several additional cases were now considered to be SSc. Conclusions The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria for SSc and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.
1,899 citations
DOI•
[...]
05 Nov 2009
TL;DR: 结节病易误诊,据王洪武等~([1])收集国内18篇关于此第一印象中拟诊 结核5例,为此应引起临床对本 病诊
Abstract: 结节病易误诊,据王洪武等~([1])收集国内18篇关于此病误诊的文献,误诊率高达63.2%,当然有误诊就会有误治,如孙永昌等~([2])报道26例结节病在影像学检查诊断的第一印象中拟诊结核5例,其中就有2例完成规范的抗结核治疗,为此应引起临床对本病诊治的重视。
1,821 citations
TL;DR: The Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue seeks to continue to serve as a key resource that guides the utilization of TA in the treatment of human disease.
Abstract: The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149-162, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1,691 citations