Toward a data-driven evaluation of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: is it sensible to look at levels of rheumatoid factor?

OBJECTIVE: Recently, new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been devised by methodology that used first a quantitative approach (data from databases), then a qualitative approach (consensus; based on paper patients), and finally a common sense-based approach (evaluation of the former phases). Now the individual items that make up these criteria are being evaluated. This study was undertaken to analyze the item "autoantibodies," in particular rheumatoid factor (RF) level. METHODS: Three separate cohorts comprising a total of 972 patients with undifferentiated arthritis were studied for RA development (according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria) and arthritis persistence. The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LRs) were compared between different levels of RF and the presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA). A similar comparison was made in 686 RA patients for the rate of joint destruction and achievement of sustained disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-free remission during 7 years of followup. The variation in RF levels obtained by different measurement methods in the same RF-positive sera was explored. RESULTS: Compared to high RF levels, presence of ACPA had a better balance between positive LR and negative LR and between PPV and NPV for RA development. The additive value of ACPA assessment after testing for RF level was higher than vice versa. The association between high RF level and RA severity was not as strong as that between ACPA antibodies and RA severity. The RF level obtained by different methods in the same patients' sera varied considerably. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that determination of RF level is subject to large variation; high RF level has limited additive prognostic value compared to ACPA positivity. Thus, omitting RF level and using RF presence, ACPA presence, and ACPA level may improve the 2010 criteria for RA.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA). METHODS: 697 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2008-9 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and modified Delphi votes. In the first round 10 clinical questions were selected. A bibliographic team systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR 2007-2008 meeting abstracts. Relevant articles were reviewed for quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis. In the second round each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 39,756 references were identified, of which 250 were systematically reviewed. Ten multinational key recommendations about the investigation and follow-up of UPIA were formulated. One recommendation addressed differential diagnosis and investigations prior to establishing the operational diagnosis of UPIA, seven recommendations related to the diagnostic and prognostic value of clinical and laboratory assessments in established UPIA (history and physical examination, acute phase reactants, autoantibodies, radiographs, MRI and ultrasound, genetic markers and synovial biopsy), one recommendation highlighted predictors of persistence (chronicity) and the final recommendation addressed monitoring of clinical disease activity in UPIA. CONCLUSIONS: Ten recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up UPIA in the clinical setting were developed. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, thus enhancing their validity and practical use.