Incidence and predictors of secondary fibromyalgia in an early arthritis cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Secondary fibromyalgia (FM) is common among patients with inflammatory arthritis, but little is known about its incidence and the factors leading to its development. The authors examined the incidence of secondary FM in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort, and assessed the association between pain, inflammation, psychosocial variables and the clinical diagnosis of FM. METHODS: Data from 1487 patients in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a prospective, observational Canadian cohort of early inflammatory arthritis patients were analysed. Diagnoses of FM were determined by rheumatologists. Incidence rates were calculated, and Cox regression models were used to determine HRs for FM risk. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence rate was 6.77 (95% CI 5.19 to 8.64) per 100 person-years during the first 12 months after inflammatory arthritis diagnosis, and decreased to 3.58 (95% CI 1.86 to 6.17) per 100 person-years 12-24 months after arthritis diagnosis. Pain severity (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.46) and poor mental health (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.62) predicted FM risk. Citrullinated peptide positivity (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.88) was associated with decreased FM risk. Serum inflammatory markers and swollen joint count were not significantly associated with FM risk. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of FM was from 3.58 to 6.77 cases per 100 person-years, and was highest during the first 12 months after diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis. Although inflammation was not associated with the clinical diagnosis of FM, pain severity and poor mental health were associated with the clinical diagnosis of FM. Seropositivity was inversely associated with the clinical diagnosis of FM.

Do patients with active RA have differences in disease activity and perceptions if anti-TNF naïve versus anti-TNF experienced? Baseline results of the optimization of adalimumab trial.

BACKGROUND: The chance of a good response in RA is attenuated in previous anti-TNF users who start new anti-TNF therapy compared to biologic naïve patients. In active RA, those with previous anti-TNF exposure compared to anti-TNF naïve may have different baseline disease activity and patient perceptions when starting a new anti-TNF treatment that could explain the observed response differences. MATERIAL/METHODS: The aim of this study was a post hoc analysis of baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Optimization of Adalimumab study that was a treat to target vs. routine care study in patients initiating adalimumab. As per the protocol, a maximum of 20% anti-TNF experienced patients were enrolled in the 300 patient trial. Twelve (4.0%) were excluded who previously used other biologics. Baseline characteristics including age, gender, tender and swollen joint counts, disease activity (DAS28), function (HAQ-DI), patient global assessment, patient satisfaction with current treatment, and inflammatory markers (CRP, ESR), were compared between previously anti-TNF experienced [etanercept or infliximab (EXP)], and anti-TNF naïve patients (NAÏVE). RESULTS: The mean (SD) age was 54.8 (13.3) years; 81.0% were female, and 237 (79.0%) were anti-TNF naïve while 51 (17.0%) patients were anti-TNF experienced (29 with etanercept, 16 with infliximab, and 6 for both). The mean (SD) baseline in EXP versus NAÏVE groups respectively was: CRP=21.7(32.9) vs. 17.5(20.7); ESR=28.7(22.5) vs. 29.8(20.4); SJC=10.5(6.0) vs. 10.7(5.6); TJC=12.8(7.1) vs. 12.3(7.3); and DAS28=6.0(1.2) vs. 5.8(1.1). None of the between-group differences were statistically significant, however, the HAQ-DI in EXP was 1.7(0.6) compared to 1.5(0.7) for the NAÏVE (P=0.021). Additionally, EXP patients had a higher patient global score [71.3(26.1) vs. 61.9(26.2), P=0.021]. CONCLUSIONS: Although anti-TNF naïve and experienced patients who initiated adalimumab were similar, with respect to several baseline characteristics, significant differences in subjective measures were observed, which may indicate more severe patient measures (function and global disease activity) in anti-TNF experienced patients.

Canadian variation by province in rheumatoid arthritis initiating anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: results from the optimization of adalimumab trial.

OBJECTIVE: We compared variations among Canadian provinces in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Optimization of Humira trial (OH) and from the Ontario Biologics Research Initiative (OBRI). Baseline characteristics were compared between regions: Ontario (ON), Quebec (QC), and other provinces (OTH). We compared Ontario OH to OBRI patients who were initiating anti-TNF therapy. RESULTS: In 300 OH patients, mean age was 54.8 years (13.3). There were 151 (50.3%) ON patients, 57 from QC (19%), and 92 from OTH (30.7%). Regional differences were seen in the number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) ever taken (ON: 3.8 ± 1.4, QC: 3.1 ± 1.1, OTH: 3.3 ± 1.4; p < 0.001); swollen joint count (SJC; ON: 10.9 ± 5.9, QC: 9.0 ± 4.4, OTH: 11.3 ± 5.6; p = 0.033); tender joint count (TJC; ON: 12.2 ± 7.5, QC: 10.3 ± 5.7, OTH: 14.4 ± 7.6; p = 0.003); 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28; ON: 5.8 ± 1.2, QC: 5.6 ± 1.0, OTH: 6.0 ± 1.1; p = 0.076); and Health Assessment Questionnaire (ON: 1.4 ± 0.7, QC: 1.7 ± 0.7, OTH: 1.5 ± 0.7; p = 0.060). DMARD-ever use differed: methotrexate (ON: 94.7%, QC: 93%, OTH: 84.8%; p = 0.025); leflunomide (ON: 74.8%, QC: 21.1%, OTH: 51.1%; p < 0.001); sulfasalazine (ON: 51%, QC: 38.6%, OTH: 25%; p < 0.001); myochrysine (ON: 9.3%, QC: 0%, OTH: 15.2%; p = 0.008); and hydroxychloroquine (ON: 67.5%, QC: 86%, OTH: 66.3%; p = 0.018). In comparison to ON OH patients, 95 OBRI patients initiating first anti-TNF had lower SJC (p = 0.017), TJC (p = 0.008), and DAS28 (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In Quebec, where access to anti-TNF is less restrictive, patients had lower SJC and TJC. ON used more DMARD, especially leflunomide, as mandated by the provincial government. Both provincial funding criteria and prescribing habits may contribute to differences. Canadian rheumatologists may vary in treatment decisions, but patients generally have similar DAS28 when initiating anti-TNF therapy.