EULAR definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment according to the current management recommendations, a significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain symptomatic. These patients can be considered to have 'difficult-to-treat RA'. However, uniform terminology and an appropriate definition are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The Task Force in charge of the "Development of EULAR recommendations for the comprehensive management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis" aims to create recommendations for this underserved patient group. Herein, we present the definition of difficult-to-treat RA, as the first step. METHODS: The Steering Committee drafted a definition with suggested terminology based on an international survey among rheumatologists. This was discussed and amended by the Task Force, including rheumatologists, nurses, health professionals and patients, at a face-to-face meeting until sufficient agreement was reached (assessed through voting). RESULTS: The following three criteria were agreed by all Task Force members as mandatory elements of the definition of difficult-to-treat RA: (1) Treatment according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendation and failure of ≥2 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/targeted synthetic DMARDs (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated); (2) presence of at least one of the following: at least moderate disease activity; signs and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease; inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment; rapid radiographic progression; RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life; and (3) the management of signs and/or symptoms is perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat RA can be used in clinical practice, clinical trials and can form a basis for future research.

EULAR provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the context of SARS-CoV-2.

The provisional EULAR recommendations address several aspects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus, and the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and are meant for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) and their caregivers. A task force of 20 members was convened by EULAR that met several times by videoconferencing in April 2020. The task force finally agreed on five overarching principles and 13 recommendations covering four generic themes: (1) General measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (2) The management of RMD when local measures of social distancing are in effect. (3) The management of COVID-19 in the context of RMD. (4) The prevention of infections other than SARS-CoV-2. EULAR considers this set of recommendations as a 'living document' and a starting point, which will be updated as soon as promising new developments with potential impact on the care of patients with RMD become available.

2018 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in giant cell arteritis.

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) represents the most common form of primary systemic vasculitis and is frequently associated with comorbidities related to the disease itself or induced by the treatment. Systematically collected data on disease course, treatment and outcomes of GCA remain scarce. The aim of this EULAR Task Force was to identify a core set of items which can easily be collected by experienced clinicians, in order to facilitate collaborative research into the course and outcomes of GCA. A multidisciplinary EULAR task force group of 20 experts including rheumatologists, internists, epidemiologists and patient representatives was assembled. During a 1-day meeting, breakout groups discussed items from a previously compiled collection of parameters describing GCA status and disease course. Feedback from breakout groups was further discussed. Final consensus was achieved by means of several rounds of email discussions after the meeting. A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to determine a core set of parameters including the level of agreement. 117 parameters were regarded as relevant. Potential items were subdivided into the following categories: General, demographics, GCA-related signs and symptoms, other medical conditions and treatment. Possible instruments and assessment intervals were proposed for documentation of each item. To facilitate implementation of the recommendations in clinical care and clinical research, a minimum core set of 50 parameters was agreed. This proposed core set intends to ensure that relevant items from different GCA registries and databases can be compared for the dual purposes of facilitating clinical research and improving clinical care.

Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called "JAK/STAT inhibitors") have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA. METHODS: The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258 . Registered on 20 October 2015.

Short term effectiveness and experiences of a peer guided web-based self-management intervention for young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: A web-based self-management intervention guided by peer-trainers was developed to support young adults' self-management in coping with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA). To investigate its effectiveness, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. In addition, the content of the chat and participants' goals were studied to identify underlying processes. METHODS: An RCT with a six-month follow up period was conducted among 72 young adults with JIA, aged between 16 and 25 years old, randomly assigned to the intervention or to the usual care control group. After 24 weeks, in both groups 24 participants completed all measurements. Intentions to treat analyses were carried out by means of linear mixed models for longitudinal measurements. With self-efficacy as primary outcome, self-management, disease activity, quality of life, absenteeism of school/work, health care medication use and adherence to the intervention were studied. The participants' goals, personal achievements, interactions on the chat, and their appreciation of the intervention were analyzed using thematic analyses. RESULTS: No significant differences were found on self-efficacy, quality of life, and self-management between the participants of the control group and the intervention group. In the intervention group, modeling and sharing experiences were the most recognized themes. Fifty-five goals were formulated and divided into the following categories: improvement and maintaining balance, setting and recognizing boundaries, communicating and coping with incomprehension. Adherence, appreciation of the own learning experience, and personal achievements were rated positively. CONCLUSION: The web-based intervention did not lead to an improvement of self-efficacy. However, additional qualitative analyses showed that the intervention was appreciated and valuable for the participants. More research is needed on how to measure the added value of this intervention compared to the usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number NTR4679 .

Subgroup analyses of the effectiveness of oral glucosamine for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis from the OA trial bank.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of oral glucosamine in subgroups of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) based on baseline pain severity, body mass index (BMI), sex, structural abnormalities and presence of inflammation using individual patient data. METHODS: After a systematic search of the literature and clinical trial registries, all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of any oral glucosamine substance in patients with clinically or radiographically defined hip or knee OA were contacted. As a minimum, pain, age, sex and BMI at baseline and pain as an outcome measure needed to be assessed. RESULTS: Of 21 eligible studies, six (n=1663) shared their trial data with the OA Trial Bank. Five trials (all independent of industry, n=1625) compared glucosamine with placebo, representing 55% of the total number of participants in all published placebo-controlled RCTs. Glucosamine was no better than placebo for pain or function at short (3 months) and long-term (24 months) follow-up. Glucosamine was also no better than placebo among the predefined subgroups. Stratification for knee OA and type of glucosamine did not alter these results. CONCLUSIONS: Although proposed and debated for several years, open trial data are not widely made available for studies of glucosamine for OA, especially those sponsored by industry. Currently, there is no good evidence to support the use of glucosamine for hip or knee OA and an absence of evidence to support specific consideration of glucosamine for any clinically relevant OA subgroup according to baseline pain severity, BMI, sex, structural abnormalities or presence of inflammation.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force.

BACKGROUND: Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. METHODS: A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. RESULTS: The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). CONCLUSIONS: The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Feasibility of an online and a face-to-face version of a self-management program for young adults with a rheumatic disease: experiences of young adults and peer leaders.

BACKGROUND: Based on the self-efficacy theory, an online and a face-to-face self-management programs 'Challenge your Arthritis' for young adults with a rheumatic disease have recently been developed. These two courses are led by young peer leaders. The objective of this study was to test the feasibility of the online and face-to-face self-management program. METHODS: Feasibility was evaluated on items of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user-acceptance, and adherence to both programs in young adults and peer leaders. Additional analyses of interactions on the e-Health applications, discussion board and chat board, were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two young adults with a diagnosed rheumatic disease participated in the study: 12 young adults followed the online program and 10 followed the face-to-face program. Both programs appeared to be feasible, especially in dealing with problems in daily life, and the participants indicated the time investment as 'worthwhile'. In using the online program, no technical problems occurred. Participants found the program easy to use, user friendly, and liked the 'look and feel' of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Both the online and the face-to-face versions of a self-management program. 'Challenge your arthritis' were found to be feasible and well appreciated by young adults with a rheumatic disease. Because these programs are likely to be a practical aid to health practices, a randomized controlled study to investigate the effects on patient outcomes is planned.

Osteopenia: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge.

We discussed whether we are able to select a subgroup of patients with osteopenia having a high fracture risk, in which anti-osteoporotic drug treatment can be advocated. We concluded that in individuals in whom, based on clinical risk factors, a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was performed in which osteopenia was diagnosed, anti-osteoporotic treatment should be prescribed in those patients with prevalent vertebral fractures, and in patients chronically using glucocorticoids, in a dosage of 7.5 mg per day or more. Although recent developments with regard to high-resolution imaging techniques (eg, peripheral quantitative computed tomography) seem to be promising, until now they do not provide substantial more reliable information than DXA in the prediction of fractures. We think that more data are urgently needed, since safe and effective drugs are available, but there is uncertainty to which patients with osteopenia these drugs should be prescribed.