Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in France: 2001.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence estimates of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) vary across Europe. Recent estimates in southern European countries showed a lower prevalence than in northern countries. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of RA in France in a multiregional representative sample in the year 2001. METHODS: A two stage random sample was constituted in seven areas (20 counties) from the national telephone directory of households and by the next birthday method in each household. Patient-interviewers, member of self help groups, were trained to administer telephone surveys using a validated questionnaire for case detection of inflammatory rheumatism, and conducted the survey under quality control. All suspected cases of RA were confirmed by their rheumatologist or by clinical examination. Prevalence estimates after probability sampling correction were standardised for age and sex (national census 1999). RESULTS: An average response rate of 64.7% (two stages combined) led to a total of 9395 respondents. Standardised prevalence was 0.31% (95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.48) for RA, 0.51% in women and 0.09% in men, with a higher age-specific prevalence in the 65-74 year age band. A geographical analysis of county clustering showed significant variation across the country. CONCLUSION: This national multiregional cooperative study demonstrates the usefulness of working in association with patients of self help groups. It showed a similar prevalence of RA to that of the spondyloarthropathies estimated concomitantly during the survey. It provides a reliable basis for definition of population targets for healthcare delivery and drug treatments.

Prevalence of spondyloarthropathies in France: 2001.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of spondyloarthropathies (SpAs) in France in a multiregional representative sample in the year 2001. METHODS: A two stage random sample was constituted in seven areas from the national telephone directory and the next birthday method in each household. Interviewers were patient-members of self help groups trained to administer telephone surveys using a validated questionnaire for detecting inflammatory joint disease. Quality of data collection was controlled periodically. SpA was confirmed by the patient's rheumatologist or by clinical examination. Prevalence estimates after probability sampling correction were standardised for age and sex (1999 national census). RESULTS: Among the 15 219 anonymous telephone numbers selected, 3.6% were places of work or secondary residences and were excluded. The phone interview participation rate ranged across regions from 55.1 to 69.9%. 3554 men and 5841 women were included in the study. Twenty nine cases of SpA were confirmed. All but one fulfilled ESSG criteria. Mean age was 47 years (range 21-78). The overall prevalence standardised for age and sex was 0.30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.46). Prevalence was similar in women (0.29% (95% CI 0.14 to 0.49)) and men (0.31 % (95% CI 0.12 to 0.60)). Geographical analysis by department clustering found no significant differences. The prevalence of SpA was as high as that of rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of SpA in France was 0.30% in 2001, with no difference between women and men. Ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis were the most common SpA subsets.

Detection of cases of inflammatory rheumatic disorders: performance of a telephone questionnaire designed for use by patient interviewers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance in the detection of cases of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the spondyloarthropathies (SpA) of a questionnaire suitable for use in telephone surveys conducted by patient interviewers. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed with reference to the signs, symptoms, and epidemiological criteria for RA (ACR 1987) and SpA (ESSG 1991). Three groups of respondents were recruited from the rheumatology outpatient clinics of 10 university hospitals: 235 with RA, 175 with SpA, and 195 controls with other rheumatological disorders. All diagnoses were confirmed by a rheumatologist. Patient from self help groups and social organisations were trained by a polling company professional to conduct a standard telephone interview using the new questionnaire. RESULTS: In an RA-control comparison, logistic regression showed that a set of five items, predominantly ACR criteria, were the most informative. Self reported diagnosis performed best (sensitivity 0.99, specificity 0.87). In an SpA-control comparison, a set of three items from the ESSG criteria were the most informative, with self reported diagnosis again performing best (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.96). Overall agreements with clinical diagnoses were 97.7% for RA and 94.4% SpA, dropping to 90.4% and 79.1%, respectively, when self reported diagnosis was excluded. Without self reported diagnosis, questions about peripheral joint and spinal pain made significant contributions to diagnostic performance. CONCLUSION: A questionnaire in plain language was developed for use in detecting cases of RA and SpA. It performed satisfactorily when administered by patient interviewers and is now available for epidemiological surveys of the general population.

Celecoxib is as efficacious as naproxen in the management of acute shoulder pain.

This study compared the analgesic efficacy and safety of the cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitor celecoxib with the non-specific non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, naproxen, in patients with acute shoulder pain. Adult patients with shoulder pain, onset within the previous 14 days and shoulder pain of > or = 40 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), were treated with oral doses of celecoxib or naproxen for 14 days and followed by a visit at day 42 in a double-blind, randomized study. The primary efficacy assessment was change in maximum pain at rest on a 100 mm VAS at day 14 compared with baseline. In addition, secondary efficacy pain and functional assessments were analysed at baseline, day 14 and day 42. A total of 202 patients were included in the trial (99 celecoxib 400 mg/day; 103 naproxen 1 g/day). The difference in change from baseline at day 14 in maximum pain at rest was not statistically significant between the two treatment groups, but was numerically higher for celecoxib than for naproxen (-47.9 +/- 2.5 versus -42.3 +/- 2.5, respectively). According to the limits of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between groups (-12.52; 1.38), celecoxib appeared to be at least as effective as naproxen. All secondary efficacy measures followed the same pattern, showing similarity between the two treatments with a trend in favour of celecoxib. The incidences of adverse events were similar for both groups. Fewer patients experienced epigastric pain with celecoxib (seven patients versus 14 with naproxen). This adverse event led to discontinuation in two patients receiving celecoxib and five receiving naproxen. Celecoxib 400 mg/day was at least as effective as naproxen 1 g/day in managing pain in this condition.

Efficacy of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2-specific inhibitor, in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a six-week controlled study with comparison against placebo and against a conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term efficacy of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2-specific inhibitor, in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: The study was a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 3 treatment arms: placebo, ketoprofen 100 mg twice daily, and celecoxib 100 mg twice daily. Patients who had AS according to the modified New York criteria, without peripheral synovitis and with active disease (pain > or =40 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and an increase in pain of at least 30% after nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug withdrawal) were eligible for study. Primary outcome measures were change in pain intensity (VAS) and change in functional impairment (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]). RESULTS: Of the 246 randomized patients, 76 were allocated to receive placebo, 90 ketoprofen, and 80 celecoxib. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups at study entry. During the 6 weeks of the study, the decrease in pain and functional impairment was greater in the active treatment groups than in the placebo group, with a trend in favor of celecoxib when the 2 active treatments were compared. The mean changes were -13 mm, -21 mm, and -27 mm (P = 0.006) for pain and 1, -6, and -12 (P = 0.0008) for BASFI score in the placebo, ketoprofen, and celecoxib groups, respectively. During treatment, the number of patients reporting epigastric pain was 6 (8%), 13 (14%), and 10 (13%) in the placebo, ketoprofen, and celecoxib groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm the clinically relevant antiinflammatory effect of celecoxib at a 200-mg daily dosage, with significant improvement of both pain and function in patients with AS.