[Implementation, of multidisciplinary consultations for patients with inflammatory arthritis and treated with subcutaneous biologic DMARDs: Assessment at one year and outlook]. / Mise en place de consultations pluridisciplinaires pour des patients atteints de rhumatisme inflammatoire chronique et traités par biothérapie sous-cutanée : bilan à un an et perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Biologics (bDMARDs) have revolutionized the prognosis of patients with inflammatory arthritis, but are not without serious side effects. The patient must be able to identify them, acquire self-care abilities or skills and adhere to their treatment. Multidisciplinary consultations, including a pharmaceutical consultation could improve the care of these patients. The pharmaceutical presence make it easier to switch to a biosimilar with etended patient support thanks to the community-hospital network. The return on investment is possible thanks to the more frequent use of biosimilars and the pricing of this type of consultation by the "Forfait de Prestation Intermédiaire". METHODOLOGY: Eligible patients are patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis, treated with subcutaneous bDMARDs. The criteria assessed were patient's knowledge of their biotherapy using the Biosecure score, their medication adherence using the CQR-5, the total of switch to biosimilars perform and the financial statement of the consultations. An assessment of the actions deployed for the community-hospital network. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-five patients (47.4%) benefited multidisciplinary consultation. The mean score of the Biosecure score was 69.6/100 (moderate knowledge) and 261 patients (88.5%) were highly adherent. 57 patients (73%) accepted the switch to biosimilar. 197 pharmacy were contacted, all of witch for patients who receive the switch. Overall patient's satisfaction was 26.9/28. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary consultations with involvement of the pharmacist should optimized patient care and the management of outpatients treated with bDMARDs. Patients have already expressed their satisfaction with this course of care and the return on investment is positive.

Association of Comorbidities in Spondyloarthritis With Poor Function, Work Disability, and Quality of Life: Results From the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Comorbidities in Spondyloarthritis Study.

OBJECTIVE: Comorbidities add to the burden of disease and its complexity, and may prevent the achievement of treat-to-target goals. The objective of this study was to study the relationship between comorbidities and key disease outcomes in spondyloarthritis (SpA), namely function, work ability, and quality of life. METHODS: Patients from the multinational (22 countries), cross-sectional Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) Comorbidities in Spondyloarthritis study were included in the analysis, provided they fulfilled the ASAS criteria. Data on comorbidities based on both self- and physician-report were collected through questionnaires and were subsequently used to compute the Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (RDCI). Univariable and multivariable (adjusted for relevant confounders) multilevel (with country as a random effect) linear or logistic (as appropriate) regression analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between the RDCI and functional ability, work ability, and quality of life. RESULTS: In total, 3,370 of 3,984 recruited patients (85%) fulfilled the ASAS criteria: 66% were male, mean ± SD age was 43 ± 14 years, mean ± SD disease duration was 8.4 ± 9.5 years, and mean ± SD RDCI was 0.7 ± 1.1. At least 1 comorbidity was reported in 51% of patients; 9% had ≥3 comorbidities. RDCI was independently associated with a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index score (ß = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.30, 0.43), lower EuroQol 5-domain questionnaire (ß = -0.03, 95% CI -0.04, -0.02), less work employment (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.76, 0.91), higher absenteeism (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04, 1.34), and higher presenteeism (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26, 1.61). CONCLUSION: Comorbidities in SpA adversely influence physical function, work ability, and quality of life and are important to take into account in daily clinical practice.

EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular disease risk management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other forms of inflammatory joint disorders: 2015/2016 update.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory joint disorders (IJD) have increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with the general population. In 2009, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce recommended screening, identification of CVD risk factors and CVD risk management largely based on expert opinion. In view of substantial new evidence, an update was conducted with the aim of producing CVD risk management recommendations for patients with IJD that now incorporates an increasing evidence base. A multidisciplinary steering committee (representing 13 European countries) comprised 26 members including patient representatives, rheumatologists, cardiologists, internists, epidemiologists, a health professional and fellows. Systematic literature searches were performed and evidence was categorised according to standard guidelines. The evidence was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Three overarching principles were defined. First, there is a higher risk for CVD in patients with RA, and this may also apply to ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Second, the rheumatologist is responsible for CVD risk management in patients with IJD. Third, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids should be in accordance with treatment-specific recommendations from EULAR and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society. Ten recommendations were defined, of which one is new and six were changed compared with the 2009 recommendations. Each designated an appropriate evidence support level. The present update extends on the evidence that CVD risk in the whole spectrum of IJD is increased. This underscores the need for CVD risk management in these patients. These recommendations are defined to provide assistance in CVD risk management in IJD, based on expert opinion and scientific evidence.

Evaluation of collected outcome measures in axial spondyloarthritis in daily-care rheumatology settings: the experience of the RHEVER network.

OBJECTIVES: Nowadays, the recommended measures for optimal monitoring of axial Spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA) disease activity are either BASDAI and CRP, or ASDAS-CRP. However, there could be a gap between recommendations and daily practice. We aimed to determine the measures collected by rheumatologists in an ax-SpA follow-up visit, and to determine the impact of a meeting (where rheumatologists reached a consensus on the measures to be collected) on the collection of such measures. METHODS: A consensual meeting of a local network of 32 rheumatologists proposed, four months later, to report at least the BASDAI score in the medical file of every ax-SpA patient at every follow-up visit. An independent investigator reviewed the medical files of 10 consecutive patients per rheumatologist, seen twice during the year (e.g. before and after the meeting). The most frequently collected measures were assessed, and then, the frequency of collection before and after the meeting was compared. RESULTS: A total of 456 medical files from 228 patients were reviewed. Treatment (>60%), CRP (51.3%) and total BASDAI (28.5%) were the most reported measures in medical files. Before/After the meeting, the frequencies of collected measures in medical files were 28.5%/51.7%, 51.3%/52.2%, 16.7%/31.6% and 0.9%/6.1% for BASDAI, CRP, BASDAI + CRP and ASDAS, respectively reaching a statistically significance for BASDAI, ASDAS and BASDAI+CRP (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a low rate of systematic report of the recommended outcome measures in ax-SpA. However, it suggests that a consensual meeting involving practicing rheumatologists might be relevant to improve the implementation of such recommendations.

Performances of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society axial spondyloarthritis criteria for diagnostic and classification purposes in patients visiting a rheumatologist because of chronic back pain: results from a multicenter, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performances (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) at diagnosis and study visit of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria in axial spondyloarthritis in patients with chronic back pain (CBP). A secondary objective was to identify the most contributory item to diagnosis/classify spondyloarthritis. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Patients were ages <45 years with a history of CBP and seeing a rheumatologist in France. Data included items from the different sets of criteria, checking if present at diagnosis ("diagnosis")/after diagnosis, but at study visit ("classification"), and the rheumatologist's diagnosis at study visit. Statistical analysis included descriptive characteristics and performances for diagnosis and classification. The diagnosis of the rheumatologist was considered the "gold standard." RESULTS: A total of 1,210 patients were eligible for our analysis. Sensitivity and specificity for ASAS axial criteria were 0.76 and 0.94, respectively, and 0.87 and 0.92 for diagnostic and classification purposes, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of the ASAS axial criteria was 13.6 and 10.30 for diagnostic and classification purposes, respectively. The most contributory items to diagnosis and classification were radiographic sacroiliitis, followed by magnetic resonance imaging sacroiliitis for diagnosis and history of uveitis for classification. CONCLUSION: We confirm the validity of the ASAS criteria for both diagnostic and classification purposes in a clinical setting of patients with CBP.

Challenges of cardiovascular risk assessment in the routine rheumatology outpatient setting: an observational study of 110 rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: An annual assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is recommended, but its practical modalities have not been determined. The objective was to assess the feasibility and usefulness of a standardized CV risk assessment in RA, performed by rheumatologists during outpatient clinics. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design within a network of rheumatologists. Each rheumatologist included 5 consecutive unselected patients with definite RA. Data collection included standardized assessment of CV risk factors: blood pressure, interpretation of glycemia and of lipid levels, and calculation of the Framingham CV risk score. Outcome criteria included feasibility (missing data and time taken to assess the patients) and usefulness (the CV risk assessment was considered useful if at least 1 modifiable and previously unknown CV risk factor was evidenced). RESULTS: Twenty-two rheumatologists (77% in office-based practice) assessed 110 RA patients. The mean ± SD age was 57 ± 10 years, and the mean ± SD RA duration was 11 ± 9 years; 50 patients (45%) were treated with biologic agents, and 76% were women. Regarding feasibility, missing data were most frequent for glycemia (27% of patients) and cholesterolemia (14% of patients). The mean ± SD duration of the CV risk assessment was 15 ± 5 minutes. The CV risk assessment was considered useful in 33 patients (30%), evidencing dyslipidemia (15% of patients) or high blood pressure (9% of patients) as the most frequently previously unknown CV risk factor. CONCLUSION: The assessment of CV risk factors is feasible, but labor intensive, during an outpatient rheumatology clinic. This assessment identified modifiable CV risk factors in 30% of the patients. These results suggest that RA patients are not sufficiently assessed and treated for CV risk factors.

Finalisation and validation of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease score, a patient-derived composite measure of impact of rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR initiative.

OBJECTIVE: A patient-derived composite measure of the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) score, takes into account pain, functional capacity, fatigue, physical and emotional wellbeing, quality of sleep and coping. The objectives were to finalise the RAID and examine its psychometric properties. METHODS: An international multicentre cross-sectional and longitudinal study of consecutive RA patients from 12 European countries was conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the different combinations of instruments that might be included within the RAID combinations scale (numeric rating scales (NRS) or various questionnaires). Construct validity was assessed cross-sectionally by Spearman correlation, reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in 50 stable patients, and sensitivity to change by standardised response means (SRM) in 88 patients whose treatment was intensified. RESULTS: 570 patients (79% women, mean ± SD age 56 ± 13 years, disease duration 12.5 ± 10.3 years, disease activity score (DAS28) 4.1 ± 1.6) participated in the validation study. NRS questions performed as well as longer combinations of questionnaires: the final RAID score is composed of seven NRS questions. The final RAID correlated strongly with patient global (R=0.76) and significantly also with other outcomes (DAS28 R=0.69, short form 36 physical -0.59 and mental -0.55, p<0.0001 for all). Reliability was high (ICC 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.94) and sensitivity to change was good (SRM 0.98 (0.96 to 1.00) compared with DAS28 SRM 1.06 (1.01 to 1.11)). CONCLUSION: The RAID score is a patient-derived composite score assessing the seven most important domains of impact of RA. This score is now validated; sensitivity to change should be further examined in larger studies.

Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in a 5-year extension study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept (ETN) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) without concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. METHODS: A total of 549 patients enrolled in this 5-year, open-label extension after completing 1 of 2 randomised controlled studies; all patients received ETN 25 mg twice weekly during the extension. Safety assessments included physical exams, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, laboratory tests, and autoantibody evaluations. Key efficacy endpoints included numbers of responders achieving the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, low disease activity scores, and disease remission. RESULTS: Three hundred and eight (56%) patients completed the 5-year extension study. Total ETN exposure, including that received during the double-blind studies was 2212 patient-years. Withdrawals for efficacy- and safety-related reasons were 12% and 19%, respectively. The most common AE was upper respiratory infection (44%). Rates of serious infections decreased over the 5-year period; one case of suspected tuberculosis was reported. Rates of malignancies remained generally consistent during the 5-year period. There were no reports of demyelinating disease, serious blood dyscrasias, or opportunistic infections. The relationship between autoantibody titres and clinical events was not statistically significant. Less than 5% of patients tested positive for anti-etanercept antibodies and all antibodies were non-neutralising. After 5 years, ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were 78%, 51%, and 32%, respectively; the mean percentage of patients achieving low disease activity score (DAS ≤ 2.4) and remission (DAS ≤ 1.6) were 44% and 20%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ETN maintained a favourable safety profile and consistent efficacy throughout the 5-year study duration.

Vaccination in adult patients with auto-immune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a systematic literature review for the European League Against Rheumatism evidence-based recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with auto-immune inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To present the systematic literature review (SLR), which formed the basis for the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) evidence-based recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with auto-immune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). METHODS: AIIRD, vaccines and immunomodulating drugs, as well as eight key questions were defined by the multidisciplinary expert committee commissioned by EULAR for developing the recommendations. A SLR was performed using MedLine through October 2009 and including data from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies, excluding case series with ≤ 5 participants. Articles in English and regarding patients ≥ 16 years of age, were eligible. RESULTS: Several vaccine-preventable infections (VPI) occur more often in AIIRD-patients and most vaccines are efficacious in AIIRD-patients, even when treated with immunomodulating agents, except rituximab. There does not appear to be an increase in vaccination-related harms in vaccinated patients with AIIRD in comparison with unvaccinated patients with AIIRD. However, these studies are underpowered and therefore not conclusive. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence from the literature, recommendations for vaccination in patients with AIIRD were made. However, more research is needed in particular regarding incidence of VPI, harms of vaccination and the influence of (new and established) immunomodulating agents on vaccination efficacy.

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis and for spondyloarthritis in general.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate new classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in patients with SpA with peripheral manifestations only. METHODS: In this Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) study, two prespecified sets of criteria were compared against the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) and Amor criteria in newly referred consecutive patients with undiagnosed peripheral arthritis, and/or enthesitis, and/or dactylitis that usually began before 45 years of age. The clinical diagnosis (SpA vs no SpA) made by the ASAS rheumatologist served as reference standard. RESULTS: In all, 24 ASAS centres included 266 patients, with a final diagnosis of SpA being made in 66.2%. After adjustments a final set of criteria showed the best balance between sensitivity (77.8%) and specificity (82.9%): arthritis and/or enthesitis and/or dactylitis plus (A) one or more of the following parameters: psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, preceding infection, human leucocyte antigen B27, uveitis, sacroiliitis on imaging, or (B) two or more other parameters: arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, inflammatory back pain in the past, family history of SpA. The new criteria performed better than modified versions of the ESSG (sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 81.1%) and the Amor criteria (sensitivity 39.8%, specificity 97.8%), particularly regarding sensitivity. In the entire ASAS population of 975 patients the combined use of ASAS criteria for axial SpA and ASAS criteria for peripheral SpA also had a better balance (sensitivity 79.5%, specificity 83.3%) than the modified ESSG (sensitivity 79.1%, specificity 68.8%) and Amor criteria (sensitivity 67.5%, specificity 86.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The new ASAS classification criteria for peripheral SpA performed well in patients presenting with peripheral arthritis, enthesitis and/or dactylitis.

Cost effectiveness of two therapeutic regimens of infliximab in ankylosing spondylitis: economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of two therapeutic regimens of infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: 230 patients with active AS who were participating in a randomised controlled trial comparing two infliximab infusion modalities-every 6 weeks (Q6) and on demand (DEM)-were included in an economic evaluation within the trial. Data were collected by phone every 3 months for 1 year. Direct and indirect costs were calculated from a payer perspective. Health-related quality of life was assessed with a general health rating scale. ICERs were calculated for one 20% improvement (ASAS20), for one partial remission and for one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The Q6 regimen was significantly more efficacious than the DEM regimen but also more costly (euro22 388 vs euro17 596; p<0.001), because it required significantly more infliximab infusions per patient (8.4 vs 6.2). The ICERs of the Q6 to DEM regimen were euro15 841 for one ASAS20 response, euro23 296 for one partial remission and euro50 760 for one QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The administration of infliximab every 6 weeks is cost effective as compared with a DEM regimen; however, the ICER is close to the acceptability threshold of euro50 000 for one QALY gained. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 00439283.

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) handbook: a guide to assess spondyloarthritis.

The field of spondyloarthritis (SpA) has experienced major progress in the last decade, especially with regard to new treatments, earlier diagnosis, imaging technology and a better definition of outcome parameters for clinical trials. In the present work, the Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) provides a comprehensive handbook on the most relevant aspects for the assessments of spondyloarthritis, covering classification criteria, MRI and x rays for sacroiliac joints and the spine, a complete set of all measurements relevant for clinical trials and international recommendations for the management of SpA. The handbook focuses at this time on axial SpA, with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) being the prototype disease, for which recent progress has been faster than in peripheral SpA. The target audience includes rheumatologists, trial methodologists and any doctor and/or medical student interested in SpA. The focus of this handbook is on practicality, with many examples of MRI and x ray images, which will help to standardise not only patient care but also the design of clinical studies.

The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection.

OBJECTIVE: To validate and refine two sets of candidate criteria for the classification/diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: All Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) members were invited to include consecutively new patients with chronic (> or =3 months) back pain of unknown origin that began before 45 years of age. The candidate criteria were first tested in the entire cohort of 649 patients from 25 centres, and then refined in a random selection of 40% of cases and thereafter validated in the remaining 60%. RESULTS: Upon diagnostic work-up, axial SpA was diagnosed in 60.2% of the cohort. Of these, 70% did not fulfil modified New York criteria and, therefore, were classified as having "non-radiographic" axial SpA. Refinement of the candidate criteria resulted in new ASAS classification criteria that are defined as: the presence of sacroiliitis by radiography or by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus at least one SpA feature ("imaging arm") or the presence of HLA-B27 plus at least two SpA features ("clinical arm"). The sensitivity and specificity of the entire set of the new criteria were 82.9% and 84.4%, and for the imaging arm alone 66.2% and 97.3%, respectively. The specificity of the new criteria was much better than that of the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group criteria modified for MRI (sensitivity 85.1%, specificity 65.1%) and slightly better than that of the modified Amor criteria (sensitivity 82.9, specificity 77.5%). CONCLUSION: The new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA can reliably classify patients for clinical studies and may help rheumatologists in clinical practice in diagnosing axial SpA in those with chronic back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00328068.

The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part I): classification of paper patients by expert opinion including uncertainty appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: Non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is characterised by a lack of definitive radiographic sacroiliitis and is considered an early stage of ankylosing spondylitis. The objective of this study was to develop candidate classification criteria for axial SpA that include patients with but also without radiographic sacroiliitis. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with possible axial SpA, most of whom were lacking definite radiographic sacroiliitis, were reviewed as "paper patients" by 20 experts from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS). Unequivocally classifiable patients were identified based on the aggregate expert opinion in conjunction with the expert-reported level of certainty of their judgement. Draft criteria for axial SpA were formulated and tested using classifiable patients. RESULTS: Active sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (odds ratio 45, 95% CI 5.3 to 383; p<0.001) was strongly associated with the classification of axial SpA. The knowledge of MRI findings led to a change in the classification of 21.1% of patients. According to the first set of candidate criteria (sensitivity 97.1%; specificity 94.7%) a patient with chronic back pain is classified as axial SpA in the presence of sacroiliitis by MRI or x rays in conjunction with one SpA feature or, if sacroilitiis is absent, in the presence of at least three SpA features. In a second set of candidate criteria, inflammatory back pain is obligatory in the clinical arm (sensitivity 86.1%; specificity 94.7%). CONCLUSION: The ASAS group has developed candidate criteria for the classification of axial SpA that include patients without radiographic sacroiliitis. The candidate criteria need to be validated in an independent international study.

New criteria for inflammatory back pain in patients with chronic back pain: a real patient exercise by experts from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).

OBJECTIVE: Inflammatory back pain (IBP) is an important clinical symptom in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), and relevant for classification and diagnosis. In the present report, a new approach for the development of IBP classification criteria is discussed. METHODS: Rheumatologists (n = 13) who are experts in SpA took part in a 2-day international workshop to investigate 20 patients with back pain and possible SpA. Each expert documented the presence/absence of clinical parameters typical for IBP, and judged whether IBP was considered present or absent based on the received information. This expert judgement was used as the dependent variable in a logistic regression analysis in order to identify those individual IBP parameters that contributed best to a diagnosis of IBP. The new set of IBP criteria was validated in a separate cohort of patients (n = 648). RESULTS: Five parameters best explained IBP according to the experts. These were: (1) improvement with exercise (odds ratio (OR) 23.1); (2) pain at night (OR 20.4); (3) insidious onset (OR 12.7); (4) age at onset <40 years (OR 9.9); and (5) no improvement with rest (OR 7.7). If at least four out of these five parameters were fulfilled, the criteria had a sensitivity of 77.0% and specificity of 91.7% in the patients participating in the workshop, and 79.6% and 72.4%, respectively, in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: This new approach with real patients defines a set of IBP definition criteria using overall expert judgement on IBP as the gold standard. The IBP experts' criteria are robust, easy to apply and have good face validity.

Professional practice assessment in ambulatory private rheumatology: a pilot evaluation of the medical file content for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Professional Practice Assessment (PPA) has become an obligation for all physicians in France, however its modalities remain unclear. The objective of this work was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a PPA for private practice rheumatologists performed in the context of a network. METHODS: A list of items considered mandatory to collect during an outpatient visit for rheumatoid arthritis, was prepared by the network. Non hospital-based rheumatologists, members of the network then evaluated some of their patient files selected by chronological order over a one-month period of time using this list. These files were then assessed by another private rheumatologist, member of the group, randomly allocated, using the same list of items. RESULTS: Eighty percent of the private-practice doctors accepted to participate. The mean time to evaluate 15 patient files was 2 hours. Agreement between auto-evaluation and external evaluation for each file was good (agreement statistic, 0.75-1.0). Items mandatory to collect were collected in a high proportion of cases (84.6%). CONCLUSION: PPA can be performed in the context of a network, auto-evaluation is a valid method and when the list of items is decided on by the network, the data are collected satisfactorily.

The development of a preliminary ultrasonographic scoring system for features of hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Painful osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand is common and a validated ultrasound (US) scoring system would be valuable for epidemiological and therapeutic outcome studies. US is increasingly used to assess peripheral joints, though most of the US focus in rheumatic diseases has been on rheumatoid arthritis. We aimed to develop a preliminary US hand OA scoring system, initially focusing on relevant pathological features with potentially high reliability. METHODS: A group of experts in the fields of OA, US and novel tool development agreed on domains and suggested scaling of the items to be used in US hand OA scoring systems. A multi-observer reliability exercise was then performed to evaluate the draft items. RESULTS: Synovitis (grey scale and Power Doppler) and osteophytes (representing activity and damage domains) were included and evaluated as the initial components of the scoring system. All three features were evaluated for their presence/absence and if present were scored using a 1-3 scale. The reliability exercise demonstrated intra-reader kappa values of 0.444-1.0, 0.211-1.0 and 0.087-1.0 for grey scale synovitis, power Doppler and osteophytes respectively. Inter-reader reliability kappa values were 0.398, 0.327 and 0.530 grey-scale synovitis, power Doppler and osteophytes respectively. Without extensive standardisation, both intra- and inter-reader reliability were moderately good. CONCLUSIONS: The draft scoring system demonstrated substantive to almost perfect percentage exact agreement on the presence/absence of the selected OA features and moderate to substantive percentage exact agreement on semi-quantitative grading. This preliminary process provides a good basis from which to further develop an US outcome tool for hand OA that has the potential to be utilised in multicentre clinical trials.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence.

PURPOSE: As a prelude to developing updated, evidence-based, international consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Treatment Guidelines Committee undertook a critical appraisal of published guidelines and a systematic review (SR) of more recent evidence for relevant therapies. METHODS: Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care two, rheumatology 11, orthopaedics one and evidence-based medicine two), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. Three additional experts were invited to take part in the critical appraisal of existing guidelines in languages other than English. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library, seven Guidelines Websites and Google were searched systematically to identify guidelines for the management of hip and/or knee OA. Guidelines which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assigned to four groups of four appraisers. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument and standardised percent scores (0-100%) for scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour, clarity, applicability and editorial independence, as well as overall quality, were calculated. Treatment modalities addressed and recommended by the guidelines were summarised. Agreement (%) was estimated and the best level of evidence to support each recommendation was extracted. Evidence for each treatment modality was updated from the date of the last SR in January 2002 to January 2006. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Oxman and Guyatt, and Jadad scales for SRs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk (RR) or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) were estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 1462 guidelines or consensus statements retrieved from the literature search met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six were predominantly based on expert opinion, five were primarily evidence based and 12 were based on both. Overall quality scores were 28%, 41% and 51% for opinion-based, evidence-based and hybrid guidelines, respectively (P=0.001). Scores for aspects of quality varied from 18% for applicability to 67% for scope. Thirteen guidelines had been developed for specific care settings including five for primary care (e.g., Prodigy Guidance), three for rheumatology (e.g., European League against Rheumatism recommendations), three for physiotherapy (e.g., Dutch clinical practice guidelines for physical therapy) and two for orthopaedics (e.g., National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines), whereas 10 did not specify the target users (e.g., Ontario guidelines for optimal therapy). Whilst 14 guidelines did not separate hip and knee, eight were specific for knee but only one for hip. Fifty-one different treatment modalities were addressed by these guidelines, but only 20 were universally recommended. Evidence to support these modalities ranged from Ia (meta-analysis/SR of RCTs) to IV (expert opinion). The efficacy of some modalities of therapy was confirmed by the results of RCTs published between January 2002 and 2006. These included exercise (strengthening ES 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23, 0.42, aerobic ES 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.70 and water-based ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.02, 0.47) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24, 0.39). Examples of other treatment modalities where recent trials failed to confirm efficacy included ultrasound (ES 0.06, 95% CI -0.39, 0.52), massage (ES 0.10, 95% CI -0.23, 0.43) and heat/ice therapy (ES 0.69, 95% CI -0.07, 1.45). The updated evidence on adverse effects also varied from treatment to treatment. For example, while the evidence for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs (RR=5.36, 95% CI 1.79, 16.10) and for increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib (RR=2.24, 95% CI 1.24, 4.02) were reinforced, evidence for other potential drug related adverse events such as GI toxicity with acetaminophen or myocardial infarction with celecoxib remained inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Twenty-three guidelines have been developed for the treatment of hip and/or knee OA, based on opinion alone, research evidence or both. Twenty of 51 modalities of therapy are universally recommended by these guidelines. Although this suggests that a core set of recommendations for treatment exists, critical appraisal shows that the overall quality of existing guidelines is sub-optimal, and consensus recommendations are not always supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines of optimal quality are most likely to be achieved by combining research evidence with expert consensus and by paying due attention to issues such as editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and applicability. This review of existing guidelines provides support for the development of new guidelines cognisant of the limitations in existing guidelines. Recommendations should be revised regularly following SR of new research evidence as this becomes available.

First update of the international ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To update the international recommendations for use of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: The published recommendations on anti-TNF treatment in ankylosing spondylitis formed the basis of the update. A questionnaire was sent to the ASAS (assessment in ankylosing spondylitis) members before the final decisions were agreed upon at an international meeting of the ASAS working group. RESULTS: Only minor changes to the original consensus statement were required. For the initiation of anti-TNF treatment, there should be: a diagnosis of definitive ankylosing spondylitis (normally based on modified New York criteria); active disease for at least four weeks, as defined by a sustained Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI) of > or =4 on a 0-10 scale and expert opinion based on clinical findings; refractory disease, defined by failure of at least two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during a three month period, failure of intra-articular steroids (if indicated), and failure of sulfasalazine in patients with predominantly peripheral arthritis; and application of the usual precautions and contraindications for biological treatment. For monitoring anti-TNF treatment: both the ASAS core set for clinical practice and the BASDAI should be followed after the initiation of treatment. Discontinuation of anti-TNF treatment in non-responders should be considered after 6-12 weeks. Response is defined by improvement of at least 50% or 2 units (on a 0-10 scale) of the BASDAI. CONCLUSIONS: This updated consensus statement is recommended in guiding clinical practice and as a basis for developing national guidelines. Evaluation and regular update of this consensus statement is subject to further research by the ASAS group.

ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as a combined effort of the 'ASsessment in AS' international working group and the European League Against Rheumatism. METHODS: Each of the 22 participants was asked to contribute up to 15 propositions describing key clinical aspects of AS management. A Delphi process was used to select 10 final propositions. A systematic literature search was then performed to obtain scientific evidence for each proposition. Outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. The effect size, relative risk, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated. On the basis of the search results, 10 major recommendations for the management of AS were constructed. The strength of recommendation was assessed based on the strength of the literature evidence, risk-benefit trade-off, and clinical expertise. RESULTS: The final recommendations considered the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (conventional NSAIDs, coxibs, and co-prescription of gastroprotective agents), disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, treatments with biological agents, simple analgesics, local and systemic steroids, non-pharmacological treatment (including education, exercise, and physiotherapy), and surgical interventions. Three general recommendations were also included. Research evidence (categories I-IV) supported 11 interventions in the treatment of AS. Strength of recommendation varied, depending on the category of evidence and expert opinion. CONCLUSION: Ten key recommendations for the treatment of AS were developed and assessed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. Regular updating will be carried out to keep abreast of new developments in the management of AS.