Exploring remission concept in axial spondyloarthritis through the perception of rheumatologists using vignettes and priority ratings.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal treatment target in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is remission; however, a consensual definition of remission is lacking. Our objective was to explore rheumatologists' perception of remission using vignette cases and a priority exercise. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists' perceptions of remission in axSpA was performed in 2020 using (i) 36 vignette cases, with a single clinical picture and three varying parameters [axial pain (ranging from 2 to 5 on a 0-10 scale)], fatigue (2-8), and morning stiffness (<15 min, 30 min or 1 h), assessed as remission yes/no; and (ii) prioritization of elements to consider for remission from a list of 12 items: BASDAI, ASDAS, elements of BASDAI and ASDAS including CRP, NSAID use, extra-articular manifestations (EAMs), and other explanations of symptoms, e.g. fibromyalgia. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Overall, 200 French rheumatologists participated in 2400 vignette evaluations. Of these, 463 (19%) were classified as remission. The six vignette cases representing 56% of all remission cases had <15 min duration of morning stiffness and axial pain ≤3/10, regardless of fatigue levels. Prioritized items for remission were: morning stiffness (75%), EAMs (75%), NSAID use (71%), axial pain (68%) and CRP (66%). CONCLUSIONS: When conceptualizing remission in axSpA, rheumatologists took into account morning stiffness and axial pain as expected; the link between remission and fatigue was much weaker. Furthermore, rheumatologists also included EAMs and NSAID use in the concept of remission. Consensus is needed for definition of remission in axSpA.

Influence of perceived barriers and facilitators for physical activity on physical activity levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis: a cross-sectional study of 150 patients.

BACKGROUND: Barriers and facilitators to physical activity in inflammatory arthritis can be assessed through the Inflammatory arthritis FAcilitators and Barriers (IFAB) questionnaire. The objective was to measure the correlation between IFAB and self-reported physical activity levels. METHODS: This was an international, multicentric, cross-sectional study in 2019-20. Consecutive spondyloarthritis (axSpA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients completed the 10-item IFAB, which ranges from - 70 to 70 with lower scores indicating more barriers. Physical activity was measured by the IPAQ-S questionnaire, steps per day collected by smartphone, and psychological readiness to change by stages of behaviour change. Spearman correlations and multivariable linear regression were calculated. RESULTS: Of 245 patients included, 150 were analysed: 69 (46%) axSpA, 63 (42%) RA, 18 (12%) PsA. Mean age was 48.6 years (standard deviation, SD 17.1), mean disease duration 11.7 (10.1) years and 60% were women. Barriers to physical activity were moderate: mean IFAB, 6 (SD 19.2); 39 (26%) patients scored less than - 5, corresponding to significant barriers. The mean physical activity was 2837 (SD 2668, median 1784) MET-minutes per week. The IPAQ-S questionnaire was correlated with the IFAB (rho 0.28, p < 0.001), as well as the stage of behaviour change (rho 0.35, p < 0.001) though not with steps per day. Multivariable analyses were confirmatory. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity were correlated with physical activity, indicating that targeting patients with high barriers and low facilitators to physical activity could be an effective option to improve physical activity levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial NCT04426747 . Registered 11 June 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

Prediction of Work Impact in Axial Spondyloarthritis by the Work Instability Scale: A Prospective Cohort Study of 101 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may have an effect on work. The Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Scale (AS-WIS) assesses difficulties at work. The objective of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of the AS-WIS on work impact. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study with 2 timepoints (at baseline and after 1.5 yrs) that included patients with axSpA who had paid employment. Patients completed the AS-WIS at baseline and work instability was scored as moderate/high if ≥ 11 (0-20 scale). At follow-up, adverse work outcomes (AWO) were grouped as moderate (short-term sick leave) or severe AWO (long-term sick leave, disability, unemployment). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to explain AWO. RESULTS: Of 101 patients, mean age 45 (SD 9) years, 52% male, disease duration was 14 (SD 8) years. The Bath AS Disease Activity Index and the Bath AS Functional Index were 34 (SD 21) and 23 (SD 23), respectively, and 69 (68%) received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. At baseline, 46 (46%) patients had moderate/high AS-WIS. At 1.5 years of follow-up, 37 patients (36%) had AWO: 25 patients (25%) a short-term sick leave, and 12 patients (12%, 7/100 patient-years) a severe AWO. Independent baseline factors associated with AWO were a moderate/high AS-WIS score (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.04-7.22) and shorter disease duration (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99). CONCLUSION: In patients with axSpA, a moderate/high AS-WIS score was predictive of AWO in this population with well-controlled axSpA. This short questionnaire can be helpful to screen for future difficulties at work.

Primary inefficacy of TNF inhibitors in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a long-term follow-up of 25 patients.

Objectives: Primary inefficacy of TNF inhibitors (TNFi) for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is infrequent. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term evolution and final diagnosis of patients with primary inefficacy of TNFi for axSpA. Methods: This was a systematic retrospective study of all patients receiving a TNFi for axSpA in one tertiary referral centre. Patients had axSpA confirmed by a rheumatologist and were started on a first course of TNFi according to usual practice. If the rheumatologist interrupted treatment at 3 months for inefficacy, this was defined as primary inefficacy. Five to 10 years later, these patients were re-evaluated. Results: Of 222 patients receiving a first TNFi for axSpA, 27 (12%) were considered as having primary inefficacy. These patients were more often females (48 vs 27%, P = 0.04), had higher functional impairment [BASDAI (0-100) 68 vs 42, P = 0.001] and less increased CRP (50 vs 78%, P = 0.008.) At the follow-up, 25 (92%) patients were re-evaluated: the diagnosis of axSpA was confirmed for 21/25 (84%) patients according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis criteria and 20/25 (80%) patients according to the rheumatologist; but 18/25 (72%) had at least one other cause of their symptoms from among OA, widespread pain syndrome or depression. A second TNFi was prescribed for 16 patients and was efficacious for 9 (56%). Conclusion: Most patients with primary inefficacy had a confirmed diagnosis of axSpA, but they often had other causes of pain. We suggest that patients with primary inefficacy to TNFi should be screened for comorbidities that may interfere with axSpA activity assessment.

Collection and management of selected comorbidities and their risk factors in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases in daily practice in France.

INTRODUCTION: In chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (CIRDs), comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and infections are sub-optimally managed. EULAR recently developed points to consider to collect and report comorbidities. The objective of this present study was to develop a pragmatic guide to collect, report and propose management recommendations for comorbidities, from a rheumatologist perspective. METHODS: The collection and reporting of comorbidities and risk factors was adapted from the EULAR points to consider. To develop management recommendations, the process comprised (1) systematic literature reviews by 3 fellows and (2) a 2-day consensus process involving 110 experts (rheumatologists and health professionals). Votes of agreement (Likert 1-5 where 5 indicates full agreement) were obtained. RESULTS: The six selected comorbidities were ischemic cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, infections, diverticulitis, osteoporosis and depression. The literature review retrieved 97 articles or websites, mostly developed for the general population. The consensus process led to reporting presence of comorbidities, current treatment, risk factors (e.g. hypertension), screening (e.g. mammography) and prevention (e.g. vaccination). Management recommendations include physical examination (e.g. blood pressure or lymph node examination), prescribing screening procedures, and interpreting results to refer in a timely manner to appropriate other health professionals. Agreement was high (mean±standard deviation, 4.37±0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus, this initiative furthers the dissemination in France of the EULAR points to consider, and clearly defines what part of the management of comorbidities is potentially within the remit of rheumatologists. This initiative should facilitate systematic management of patients with CIRDs.

Safety and Clinical Effectiveness of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty in the Elderly (≥80 years).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) in patients aged 80 and over. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-three patients (127 women, 46 men; mean age = 84.2y) underwent 201 PVP procedures (391 vertebrae) in our institution from June 2008 to March 2012. One hundred and twenty-six patients (73 %) had osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCF), 36 (20.5 %) were treated for tumour lesions, and the remaining 11 (6.5 %) for lesions from another cause. Comorbidities and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were assessed before treatment. Periprocedural and delayed complications were systematically recorded. A qualitative scale was used to evaluate pain relief at 1-month follow-up, ranging from significant pain worsening to marked improvement or disappearance. New fracture occurrence was assessed on follow-up imaging. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of patients had pretreatment ASA class scores ≥3. No major complication occurred. Pain was unchanged in 16.9 % of cases, mildly improved in 31.5 %, and disappeared in 47.8 %. We identified 27 (11 %) symptomatic new VCFs in patients with osteoporosis on follow-up imaging. The mean delay in diagnosis of new fractures was 5 ± 8.7 months. CONCLUSIONS: Even in the elderly, PVP remains a safe and effective technique for pain relief, independently of the underlying disease. KEY POINTS: • Post-PVP pain improvement was observed in 79.3 % of elderly patients. • PVP remains a safe technique in elderly patients. • No decompensation of comorbidity was observed in our series.

Recommendations for using TNFα antagonists and French Clinical Practice Guidelines endorsed by the French National Authority for Health.

The use of TNFα antagonists must follow specific guidelines to ensure optimal effectiveness and safety. The French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) and Task Force on Inflammatory Joint Diseases (CRI), in partnership with several French learned societies, asked the French National Authority for Health (HAS) to develop and endorse good practice guidelines for the prescription and monitoring of TNFα antagonist therapy by physicians belonging to various specialties. These guidelines were developed, then, validated by two multidisciplinary panels of experts based on an exhaustive review of the recent literature and in compliance with the methodological rules set forth by the HAS. They pertain to the initial prescription of TNFα antagonists and to a variety of clinical situations that can arise during the follow-up of patients receiving TNFα antagonists (infections, malignancies, pregnancy, vaccination, paradoxical adverse events, surgery, use in older patients, and vasculitides).

Methodological issues when measuring paid productivity loss in patients with arthritis using biologic therapies: an overview of the literature.

Many patients with RA, AS and PsA experience restrictions in participating in the labour force. This reduces quality of life but also affects social insertion and economic autonomy of a patient. During the past decade, treatment strategies have been intensified and, additionally, a number of biologic therapies have been introduced for the treatment of these diseases. Treatment with biologic therapies has proved to be clinically effective and retard radiographic damage. Although less frequently investigated, a number of studies also determined the impact of biologic therapy on employment. However, the results in these studies are conflicting, which may partly be explained by the variation in methods used to assess the association between biologic therapy and employment/productivity loss. The aim of this overview is to critically appraise the different methodological approaches used in studies that evaluated the effect of biologic therapies on employment/productivity loss outcomes in inflammatory arthritis. The specific aims are to compare and discuss: (i) differences in population characteristics and study design including the use of a control group; and (ii) differences in methods used to assess and quantify productivity loss.

Risk of infections in bronchiectasis during disease-modifying treatment and biologics for rheumatic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is frequently associated (up to 30%) with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases and leads to lower respiratory tract infections. Data are lacking on the risk of lower respiratory tract infections in patients treated with biologic agents. METHODS: Monocenter, retrospective systematic study of all patients with a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease and concomitant bronchiectasis, seen between 2000 and 2009. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evidence predictive factors of the number of infectious respiratory events. RESULTS: 47 patients were included (mean age 64.1±9.1 years, 33 (70.2%) women), with a mean follow-up per patient of 4.3±3.1 years. Rheumatoid arthritis was the main rheumatic disease (90.1%). The mean number of infectious events was 0.8±1.0 event per patient-year. The factors predicting infections were the type of treatment (biologic vs. non biologic disease-modifying treatments), with an odds ratio of 8.7 (95% confidence interval: 1.7-43.4) and sputum colonization by any bacteria (odds ratio 7.4, 2.0-26.8). In multivariate analysis, both factors were independently predictive of infections. CONCLUSION: Lower respiratory tract infectious events are frequent among patients receiving biologics for chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease associated with bronchiectasis. Biologic treatment and pre-existing sputum colonization are independent risk factors of infection occurrence.

Switching between tumour necrosis factor blockers in spondyloarthritis: a retrospective monocentre study of 222 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency and effectiveness of switching TNF blockers in spondyloarthritis, and the predisposing factors of this effectiveness. METHODS: This was a retrospective systematic monocentre study; inclusion criteria were definite spondyloarthritis (Amor's criteria) and introduction of a first TNF blocker after January 2004. The retention rate of the first and second TNF blocker (if applicable) was evaluated (Kaplan-Meier technique). Patients' characteristics were compared with regard to requirement for switching. Predisposing factors of retention of the second TNF blocker were analysed (log-rank, Cox). RESULTS: A total of 222 patients started a first TNF blocker; 79% fulfilled the New York modified criteria, with increased CRP (75%) and median BASDAI of 50 (35-61). Mean follow up was 29±20 months (i.e. a total of 538 patient-years). By the end of follow-up, 72 patients (32%) had switched to a second TNF blocker. Patients who switched had more peripheral enthesitic symptoms (p=0.01) and a tendency for more peripheral involvement (p=0.06). Retention of the first and second TNF blocker was similar (p=0.32). No predictive factors were found for retention of the second TNF blocker; including no difference between TNF blockers and between reasons for stopping the first. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of switching TNF blocker in spondyloarthritis appears clinically relevant; no predictive factors of this effectiveness were evidenced.