Impact of muscle biopsy on the clinical decision-making process in patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy.

BACKGROUND: The significance of muscle biopsy as a diagnostic tool in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) remains elusive. We aimed to determine the diagnostic weight that has been given to muscle biopsy in patients with suspected IIM, particularly in terms of clinical diagnosis and therapeutic decisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric study, we analyzed muscle biopsy results of adult patients with suspected IIM referred to a tertiary center between January 1, 2007, and October 31, 2021. Information regarding referral department, suspected diagnosis, biopsy site, demographic, clinical, laboratory data, and imaging results were extracted. Statistical analyses included the level of agreement between suspected and histological diagnosis and calculation of diagnostic performance (positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity of muscle biopsy in relation to clinical diagnosis and/or treatment initiation). Performance was tested in different strata based on clinical pre-test probability. RESULTS: Among 758 muscle biopsies, IIM was histologically compatible in 357/758 (47.1%) cases. Proportion of IIM was higher if there was a solid clinical pre-test probability (64.3% vs. 42.4% vs. 48% for high, medium and low pre-test probability). Sensitivity and specificity of muscle biopsy were highest (82%) when the diagnosis by the clinician was used as outcome scenario. Negative predictive value was only moderate (between 63% and 80%) and lowest if autoantibodies were positive (35%). CONCLUSION: In patients with clinically suspected IIM, approximately 50% of biopsies revealed features indicative of IIM. Diagnostic performance of muscle biopsy was moderate to high depending on clinical pre-test probability.

Trajectory clusters of radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: associations with clinical variables.

OBJECTIVES: Identification of trajectories of radiographic damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by clustering patients according to the shape of their curve of Sharp-van der Heijde scores (SHSs) over time. Developing models to predict their progression cluster from baseline characteristics. METHODS: Patient-level data over a 2-year period from five large randomised controlled trials on tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in RA were used. SHSs were clustered in a shape-respecting manner to identify distinct clusters of radiographic progression. Characteristics of patients within different progression clusters were compared at baseline and over time. Logistic regression models were developed to predict trajectory of radiographic progression using information at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 1887 patients with 7738 X-rays were used for cluster analyses. We identified four distinct clusters with characteristic shapes of radiographic progression: one with a stable SHS over the whole 2-year period (C0/lowChange; 86%); one with relentless progression (C1/rise; 5.8%); one with decreasing SHS (C2/improvement; 6.9%); one going up and down (C3/bothWays; 1.4%) of the SHS. Robustness of clusters were confirmed using different clustering methods. Regression models identified disease duration, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) and SHS and treatment status as predictors for cluster assignment. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify and partly characterise four different clusters of radiographic progression over time in patients with RA, most remarkably one with relentless progression and another one with amelioration of joint damage over time, suggesting the existence of distinct patterns of joint damage accrual in RA.

Comorbidity burden in axial spondyloarthritis: a cluster analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how comorbidities cluster in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and whether these clusters are associated with quality of life, global health and other outcome measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of consecutive patients meeting ASAS criteria for axSpA in Liverpool, UK. Outcome measures included quality of life (EQ5D), global health and disease activity (BASDAI). We used hierarchical cluster analysis to group patients according to 38 pre-specified comorbidities. In multivariable linear models, the associations between distinct comorbidity clusters and each outcome measure were compared, using axSpA patients with no comorbidities as the reference group. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, symptom duration, BMI, deprivation, NSAID-use and smoking. RESULTS: We studied 419 patients (69% male, mean age 46 years). 255 patients (61%) had at least one comorbidity, among whom the median number was 1 (range 1-6). Common comorbidities were hypertension (19%) and depression (16%). Of 15 clusters identified, the most prevalent clusters were hypertension-coronary heart disease and depression-anxiety. Compared with patients with no comorbidities, the fibromyalgia-irritable bowel syndrome cluster was associated with adverse patient-reported outcome measures; these patients reported 1.5-unit poorer global health (95%CI 0.01, 2.9), reduced quality of life (0.25-unit lower EQ5D; 95%CI -0.37, -0.12) and 1.8-unit higher BASDAI (95% CI 0.4, 3.3). Similar effect estimates were found for patients in the depression-anxiety cluster. CONCLUSION: Comorbidity is common among axSpA patients. The two most common comorbidities were hypertension and depression. Patients in the depression-anxiety and fibromyalgia-IBS clusters reported poorer health and increased axSpA severity.

2017 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in rheumatoid arthritis.

Personalised medicine, new discoveries and studies on rare exposures or outcomes require large samples that are increasingly difficult for any single investigator to obtain. Collaborative work is limited by heterogeneities, both what is being collected and how it is defined. To develop a core set for data collection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) research which (1) allows harmonisation of data collection in future observational studies, (2) acts as a common data model against which existing databases can be mapped and (3) serves as a template for standardised data collection in routine clinical practice to support generation of research-quality data. A multistep, international multistakeholder consensus process was carried out involving voting via online surveys and two face-to-face meetings. A core set of 21 items ('what to collect') and their instruments ('how to collect') was agreed: age, gender, disease duration, diagnosis of RA, body mass index, smoking, swollen/tender joints, patient/evaluator global, pain, quality of life, function, composite scores, acute phase reactants, serology, structural damage, treatment and comorbidities. The core set should facilitate collaborative research, allow for comparisons across studies and harmonise future data from clinical practice via electronic medical record systems.

Incidence and Prevalence of Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate prevalence and incidence of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and obesity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Patients with RA, psoriasis, or PsA were identified based on medical and pharmacy claims from the MarketScan claims databases from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2014. Primary outcomes included age- and sex-standardized prevalence of CV risk factors during the 12 months preceding diagnosis date and incidence rates per 1,000 patient-years, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) during followup. RESULTS: Prevalence for RA, psoriasis, and PsA cohorts for hypertension was 18.6% (95% CI 18.3-18.8), 16.6% (95% CI 16.3-17.0), and 19.9% (95% CI 19.4-20.4), respectively; for diabetes mellitus 6.2% (95% CI 6.1-6.4), 6.3% (95% CI 6.0-6.5), and 7.8% (95% CI 7.4-8.2); for hyperlipidemia 9.9% (95% CI 9.7-10.1), 10.4% (95% CI 10.2-10.7), and 11.6% (95% CI 11.2-12.0); and for obesity 4.4% (95% CI 4.2-4.6), 3.8% (95% CI 3.5-4.0), and 6.0% (95% CI 5.6-6.5). Incidence rates per 1,000 patient-years during followup for RA, psoriasis, and PsA cohorts, respectively, for hypertension were 74.0 (95% CI 72.5-75.5), 68.2 (95% CI 65.9-70.4), and 79.8 (95% CI 76.3-83.3); for diabetes mellitus 10.6 (95% CI 10.1-11.1), 13.0 (95% CI 12.1-13.8), and 14.7 (95% CI 13.5-16.0); for hyperlipidemia 40.3 (95% CI 39.4-41.3), 47.1 (95% CI 45.4-48.7), and 52.0 (95% CI 49.6-54.3); and for obesity 24.4 (95% CI 23.4-25.4), 26.4 (95% CI 25.0-27.8), and 32.9 (95% CI 30.6-35.2). CONCLUSION: Patients with RA, psoriasis, and PsA have high prevalence and incidence of CV risk factors, suggesting the need for risk factor monitoring of these patients.

Multimorbidity in rheumatic conditions.

In recent years, multimorbidity in rheumatic conditions has gained increasing attention. Rheumatologist care for an aging patient population with multiple diseases, therefore multimorbidity is the rule, not the exception. Owing to the high prevalence and the potential interaction of coexisting diseases, multimorbidity needs to be taken into account when treating patients with chronic inflammatory conditions. In this review we address the most prevalent comorbidities in patients with rheumatic conditions and their impact on important outcomes, such as physical function, quality of life, and mortality.

Treatment Patterns of Multimorbid Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from an International Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the treatment profile of multimorbid patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in contrast to patients with RA only. METHODS: COMORA (Comorbidities in Rheumatoid Arthritis) is a cross-sectional, international study assessing morbidities, outcomes, and treatment of patients with RA. Patients were grouped according to their multimorbidity profile assessed by a counted multimorbidity index (cMMI). Treatment for RA was categorized as use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), in particular tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), synthetic DMARD (sDMARD) use only, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and corticosteroid use. Logistic regression models were performed to determine the OR of bDMARD, TNFi, sDMARD, NSAID, or corticosteroid use based on a patient's cMMI and global region after adjusting for age, disease activity, disease duration, educational level, and previous DMARD therapy. RESULTS: Out of 3920 patients, 32.7% received bDMARD; 59.9% sDMARD only, 51.1% used concomitant NSAID, and 54.8% used corticosteroid. Regional differences were observed with the most frequent use of bDMARD in the United States (46.5%) and lowest in North Africa (9%). After adjusting for confounders in logistic regression, the OR for bDMARD use was reduced for each additional morbidity (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96). Similar results were found for TNFi (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99), whereas the OR for use of sDMARD was increased (1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.22). No significant change of OR was found for NSAID or corticosteroid use. CONCLUSION: In this study, the odds of bDMARD use decreases 11% for each additional chronic morbid condition after adjustment for regional differences, disease activity, and other covariates.

Consistency and Utility of Data Items Across European Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Cohorts and Registers.

OBJECTIVE: To identify overlaps, discrepancies, and perceived utility of the currently collected data in European clinical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cohorts and registers. Heterogeneity of data collection and data representation may limit comparative and collaborative RA research. Defining data standards is important and should be informed by which data items are currently collected and their perceived utility in scientific analyses. METHODS: A web survey was sent to 27 European RA registers/clinical cohorts, requesting information on which specific data items were collected, how and with what frequency they were collected, how often data were missing, and if the items collected were regarded as useful for research. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 27 contacted RA cohorts/registers from 16 different European countries, totaling 189,633 patients (range 130-55,000), completed the survey. Items collected by the majority of data sources and used frequently for research were composite disease activity scores, acute-phase reactants, joint counts, information on RA-specific treatments, physical function, and patient global assessment of disease activity. Many of the collected items showed large variability in terms of measurement and time point of collection. Among all items collected, disease activity, RA treatment, and joint counts were regarded as the most important. When not collected, smoking, imaging, and comorbidities were the top-ranked variables felt to have been worth collecting. CONCLUSION: Even though certain items are regularly collected, the mode of data collection and the data definition are heterogeneous. Harmonization of data collection across European clinical RA data sources is therefore pivotal for future collaborative studies.

Anti-TNF in rheumatoid arthritis: an overview.

Since the introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors, the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been revolutionized. The approach of targeting TNF-α has considerably improved the success in the treatment of RA. Over the last 3 decades five different TNF-α inhibitors have been administered: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab-pegol. All of them show excellent efficacy with similar rates of clinical response and prevention of radiographic disease progression. With improved therapies, treatment strategies have also changed, with the aims now being to achieve and maintain remission. Most recently, the discussion expands to the issue of treatment reduction in patients who have achieved sustained remission; here, the discontinuation of TNF-α inhibitor therapy has become an area of interest, given obvious economic and risk-benefit evaluations. However, only little is known if "biologic free" remission is possible in patients with sustained remission following intensive TNF-α inhibitor therapy.

Prevalence of comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis and evaluation of their monitoring: results of an international, cross-sectional study (COMORA).

BACKGROUND: PATIENTS with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of developing comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of comorbidities and compare their management in RA patients from different countries worldwide. STUDY DESIGN: international, cross-sectional. PATIENTS: consecutive RA patients. DATA COLLECTED: demographics, disease characteristics (activity, severity, treatment), comorbidities (cardiovascular, infections, cancer, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, osteoporosis and psychiatric disorders). RESULTS: Of 4586 patients recruited in 17 participating countries, 3920 were analysed (age, 56±13 years; disease duration, 10±9 years (mean±SD); female gender, 82%; DAS28 (Disease Activity Score using 28 joints)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 3.7±1.6 (mean±SD); Health Assessment Questionnaire, 1.0±0.7 (mean±SD); past or current methotrexate use, 89%; past or current use of biological agents, 39%. The most frequently associated diseases (past or current) were: depression, 15%; asthma, 6.6%; cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke), 6%; solid malignancies (excluding basal cell carcinoma), 4.5%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3.5%. High intercountry variability was observed for both the prevalence of comorbidities and the proportion of subjects complying with recommendations for preventing and managing comorbidities. The systematic evaluation of comorbidities in this study detected abnormalities in vital signs, such as elevated blood pressure in 11.2%, and identified conditions that manifest as laboratory test abnormalities, such as hyperglycaemia in 3.3% and hyperlipidaemia in 8.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Among RA patients, there is a high prevalence of comorbidities and their risk factors. In this multinational sample, variability among countries was wide, not only in prevalence but also in compliance with recommendations for preventing and managing these comorbidities. Systematic measurement of vital signs and laboratory testing detects otherwise unrecognised comorbid conditions.

Combination therapy for pain management in inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, other spondyloarthritis).

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, many people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) continue to have persistent pain that may require additional therapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and safety of combination pain therapy for people with IA (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and other spondyloarthritis (SpA)). We planned to assess differences in effects between patients on background disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and patients on no background therapy in subgroup analyses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; and EMBASE. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search. We also handsearched conference proceedings of the American College of Rheumatology and the European League against Rheumatism (2008-10). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) assessing combination therapy (at least two drugs from the following classes: analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, opioid-like drugs and neuromodulators (antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants)) compared with monotherapy, for adults with IA (RA, AS, PsA and other SpA). We speficically excluded studies that did not report pain or studies without a standardised pain scale as an outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (total of 912 patients) met the inclusion criteria (22 in RA; one in a mixed population of RA and osteoarthritis); all except one were published before 1990. Most study populations were not taking DMARDs (e.g. methotrexate, sulphasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and leflunomide) and all studies were performed prior to the introduction of biologic therapies (e.g. etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab). All trials were at high risk of bias, heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and we were only able to report a general description of results.The majority (18 studies, 78%) found no differences between the combination and monotherapy treatments they studied, while five (22%) reported conflicting results, favouring either the combination or monotherapy arms.From the 12 trials on NSAID + analgesic vs NSAID, nine reported no significant difference between the interventions, while three did: in two, the combination therapy achieved better pain control; and the third trial compared combination therapy with two different dosages of monotherapy (NSAID alone) and reported that a high dose phenylbutazone was superior to combination therapy (paracetamol + aspirin), which was superior to low dose phenylbutazone.From the five studies on the combination of two NSAIDS vs one NSAID, four reported no significant differences between interventions, and one reported significantly better pain control with combination therapy.The single trial comparing a combination of opioid + neuromodulator vs opioid reported better pain control with monotherapy.The remaining trials (NSAID + neuromodulator vs NSAID (3 trials); opioid + NSAID vs NSAID (1 trial); and opioid + analgesic vs analgesic (1 trial)) found no significant difference between combination therapy and monotherapy.Information regarding withdrawals due to inadequate analgesia and safety was incompletely reported, but in general there were no differences between combination therapy and monotherapy.No data were available that addressed the value of combination pain therapy or monotherapy for people with IA who have optimal disease suppression. There were no studies that included patients with AS, PsA or SpA. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on 23 trials, all at high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to establish the value of combination therapy over monotherapy for people with IA. Importantly, there are no studies addressing the value of combination therapy for patients with IA who have persistent pain despite optimal disease suppression. Well designed trials are needed to address this question.