Cardiovascular disease risk scores in the current practice: which to use in rheumatoid arthritis?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the highest prevalence disease in the general population (GP) and it accounts for 20 million deaths worldwide each year. Its prevalence is even higher in rheumatoid arthritis. Early detection of subclinical disease is critical and the use of cardiovascular risk prediction models and calculators is widely spread. The impact of such techniques in the GP was previously studied. Despite their common background and similarities, some disagreement exists between most scores and their importance in special high-risk populations like rheumatoid arthritis (RA), having a low level of evidence. The current article aims to single out those predictive models (models) that could be most useful in the care of rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Utility of different cardiovascular disease prediction models in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis comes with a 30% higher probability for cardiovascular disease than the general population. Current guidelines advocate for early and aggressive primary prevention and treatment of risk factors in high-risk populations but this excess risk is under-addressed in RA in real life. This is mainly due to difficulties met in the correct risk evaluation. This study aims to underline the differences in results of the main cardiovascular risk screening models in the real life rheumatoid arthritis population. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, patients addressed to a tertiary care center in Romania for an biannual follow-up of rheumatoid arthritis and the ones who were considered free of any cardiovascular disease were assessed for subclinical atherosclerosis. Clinical, biological and carotidal ultrasound evaluations were performed. A number of cardiovascular disease prediction scores were performed and differences between tests were noted in regard to subclinical atherosclerosis as defined by the existence of carotid intima media thickness over 0,9 mm or carotid plaque. RESULTS: In a population of 29 Romanian rheumatoid arthritis patients free of cardiovascular disease, the performance of Framingham Risk Score, HeartSCORE, ARIC cardiovascular disease prediction score, Reynolds Risk Score, PROCAM risk score and Qrisk2 score were compared. All the scores under-diagnosed subclinical atherosclerosis. With an AUROC of 0,792, the SCORE model was the only one that could partially stratify patients in low, intermediate and high-risk categories. The use of the EULAR recommended modifier did not help to reclassify patients. CONCLUSION: The only score that showed a statistically significant prediction capacity for subclinical atherosclerosis in a Romanian rheumatoid arthritis population was SCORE. The additional calibration or the use of imaging techniques in CVD risk prediction for the intermediate risk category might be warranted.

Rheumatic manifestations in diabetic patients.

Diabetes mellitus (DM), a worldwide high prevalence disease, is associated with a large variety of rheumatic manifestations. For most of these affections, pathophysiologic correlations are not well established. Some of them, such as diabetic cheiroarthropathy, neuropathic arthritis, diabetic amyotrophy, diabetic muscle infraction, are considered intrinsic complications of DM. For others, like diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis or reflex sympathetic dystrophy, DM is considered a predisposing condition. In most cases, these affections cause pain and disability, affecting the quality of life of diabetic patients, but once correctly diagnosed, they often respond to the treatment, that generally requires a multidisciplinary team. This article reviews some epidemiological, clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of these conditions.

Patients' perspectives and motivators to participate in clinical trials with novel therapies for rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES: Successful advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis rely on enrolment of patients into clinical trials with novel agents. The aim of this study was to assess the patients' perspectives and motivators to participate in clinical trials. METHODS: Consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis attending three rheumatology departments in Romania underwent structured questionnaire interview regarding the motivation/possible causes of acceptance or drawbacks to participate in a clinical trial. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients, mean age 48, 30% men 70% women answered. Response rate was 95%. Previous participation in other clinical trials was 23%. Patients were highly motivated to participate in order to help themselves or other patients and to enhance the knowledge about the disease. Patients were prone to ask for advice about their enrolment in the study from the family and their current physicians, including the general practitioner. The need for supplementary information about the study was felt because they had not dared to ask for the information, although they trusted their current doctor. A high percentage considered payment and free complete blood tests as a stimulus, especially among patients with lower levels of education (p = 0.03, Fisher's ANOVA). Advertising for investigational medical product for purposes of patient recruitment was important for 57%, not only for safety or trust, but also for transparency and as a tool to get information. 73% of the persons agreed to the usefulness of patients association. 26% of them were willing to be actively involved, especially to report and include adverse events in the study settings. 58% were motivated if they knew other patients were consulted. Patients were not motivated because of the adverse events, placebo effect, treatment discontinuation, limited previous experience, availability of alternative therapies and doctor reimbursement for the study. CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that awareness of factors (positive and negative) which influence motivation to participate in a clinical trial may help to refine patient's education and to consider new strategies for future trials.

Comparison of statistically derived ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. METHODS: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-)responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. RESULTS: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of >or=80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2)=36-45; p<0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. CONCLUSION: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.