Patient global assessment and inflammatory markers in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies - A longitudinal study.

AIM: To explore if patient global assessment (PGA) is associated with inflammation over time and if associations are explained by other measures of disease activity and function in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). METHODS: PGA and systemic inflammatory markers prospectively collected over five years were retrieved from the International MyoNet registry for 1200 patients with IIM. Associations between PGA, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) were analyzed using mixed models. Mediation analysis was used to test if the association between PGA and inflammatory markers during the first year of observation could be explained by measures of disease activity and function. RESULTS: PGA improved, and inflammatory markers decreased during the first year of observation. In the mixed models, high levels of inflammatory markers were associated with worse PGA in both men and women across time points during five years of observation. In men, but not in women, the association between elevated ESR, CRP and poorer PGA was explained by measures of function and disease activity. With a few exceptions, the association between improved PGA and reduced inflammatory markers was partially mediated by improvements in all measures of function and disease activity. CONCLUSION: Increased levels of systemic inflammation are associated with poorer PGA in patients with IIM. In addition to known benefits of lowered inflammation, these findings emphasize the need to reduce systemic inflammation to improve subjective health in patients with IIM. Furthermore, the results demonstrate the importance of incorporating PGA as an outcome measure in clinical practice and clinical trials.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis facing sick leave or work disability meet varying regulations: a study among rheumatologists and patients from 44 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explore differences in formal regulations around sick leave and work disability (WD) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as well as perceptions by rheumatologists and patients on the system's performance, across European countries. METHODS: We conducted three cross-sectional surveys in 50 European countries: one on work (re-)integration and social security (SS) system arrangements in case of sick leave and long-term WD due to RA (one rheumatologist per country), and two among approximately 15 rheumatologists and 15 patients per country on perceptions regarding SS arrangements on work participation. Differences in regulations and perceptions were compared across categories defined by gross domestic product (GDP), type of social welfare regime, European Union (EU) membership and country RA WD rates. RESULTS: Forty-four (88%) countries provided data on regulations, 33 (75%) on perceptions of rheumatologists (n=539) and 34 (77%) on perceptions of patients (n=719). While large variation was observed across all regulations across countries, no relationship was found between most of regulations or income compensation and GDP, type of SS system or rates of WD. Regarding perceptions, rheumatologists in high GDP and EU-member countries felt less confident in their role in the decision process towards WD (ß=-0.5 (95% CI -0.9 to -0.2) and ß=-0.5 (95% CI -1.0 to -0.1), respectively). The Scandinavian and Bismarckian system scored best on patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions of regulations and system performance. CONCLUSIONS: There is large heterogeneity in rules and regulations of SS systems across Europe in relation to WD of patients with RA, and it cannot be explained by existing welfare regimes, EU membership or country's wealth.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

To develop response criteria for juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). We analysed the performance of 312 definitions that used core set measures from either the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) or the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO) and were derived from natural history data and a conjoint analysis survey. They were further validated using data from the PRINTO trial of prednisone alone compared to prednisone with methotrexate or cyclosporine and the Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial. At a consensus conference, experts considered 14 top candidate criteria based on their performance characteristics and clinical face validity, using nominal group technique. Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model with a total improvement score of 0-100, using absolute per cent change in core set measures of minimal (≥30), moderate (≥45), and major (≥70) improvement. The same criteria were chosen for adult DM/polymyositis, with differing thresholds for improvement. The sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 91-98% for minimal improvement, 92-94% and 94-99% for moderate improvement, and 91-98% and 85-86% for major improvement, respectively, in juvenile DM patient cohorts using the IMACS and PRINTO core set measures. These criteria were validated in the PRINTO trial for differentiating between treatment arms for minimal and moderate improvement (p=0.009-0.057) and in the RIM trial for significantly differentiating the physician's rating for improvement (p<0.006). The response criteria for juvenile DM consisted of a conjoint analysis-based model using a continuous improvement score based on absolute per cent change in core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for minimal, moderate, and major clinical response in adult dermatomyositis and polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute per cent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (p<0.001). The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute per cent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop response criteria for juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). METHODS: We analyzed the performance of 312 definitions that used core set measures from either the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) or the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO) and were derived from natural history data and a conjoint analysis survey. They were further validated using data from the PRINTO trial of prednisone alone compared to prednisone with methotrexate or cyclosporine and the Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial. At a consensus conference, experts considered 14 top candidate criteria based on their performance characteristics and clinical face validity, using nominal group technique. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model with a total improvement score of 0-100, using absolute percent change in core set measures of minimal (≥30), moderate (≥45), and major (≥70) improvement. The same criteria were chosen for adult DM/polymyositis, with differing thresholds for improvement. The sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 91-98% for minimal improvement, 92-94% and 94-99% for moderate improvement, and 91-98% and 85-86% for major improvement, respectively, in juvenile DM patient cohorts using the IMACS and PRINTO core set measures. These criteria were validated in the PRINTO trial for differentiating between treatment arms for minimal and moderate improvement (P = 0.009-0.057) and in the RIM trial for significantly differentiating the physician's rating for improvement (P < 0.006). CONCLUSION: The response criteria for juvenile DM consisted of a conjoint analysis-based model using a continuous improvement score based on absolute percent change in core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Adult Dermatomyositis and Polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). METHODS: Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

A tailored approach to reduce dose of anti-TNF drugs may be equally effective, but substantially less costly than standard dosing in patients with ankylosing spondylitis over 1 year: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety and costs of standard versus individually tailored reduced doses of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) after achieving low-disease activity. METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective observational study performed within the ATTRA registry. The anti-TNF dose tapering strategy was chosen by treating physicians, without prespecified protocol. We used propensity score (PS) methodology to identify two cohorts of patients matched for relevant baseline characteristics who were treated with either reduced (n=53) or standard (n=83) doses of TNF inhibitors. One-year outcomes and costs of anti-TNF drugs were compared between both PS-matched cohorts. RESULTS: In the reduced dosing group, the median dose of TNF inhibitor corresponded to 0.67 and 0.5 of the standard dose initially and at 12 months respectively, and 21% of patients required return to standard dosing regimen. The mean change per year in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Activity Index, C-reactive protein , Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and Bath AS functional index, as well as quality-adjusted life-year area under the curve were no different between both groups. The HR (95% CI) of reduced versus standard dosing group for relapse and any adverse event was 1.46 (0.66 to 3.19) and 0.56 (0.22 to 1.44), respectively. Mean difference (95% CI) in cost of anti-TNF drugs was €-4214 (-4707 to -3701) per year of treatment in favour of reduced dosing strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AS after reaching low-disease activity, a tailored approach to reduce doses of anti-TNF drugs produced similar clinical outcomes at 1 year, but was substantially less costly.

Delays in assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: variations across Europe.

OBJECTIVE: The first 3 months after symptom onset represent an important therapeutic window for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study investigates the extent and causes of delay in assessment of patients with RA in eight European countries. METHOD: Data on the following levels of delay were collected from 10 centres (Berlin, Birmingham, Heraklion, Lund, Prague, Stockholm, Umeå, Vienna, Warsaw and Zurich): (1) from onset of RA symptoms to request to see healthcare professional (HCP); (2) from request to see HCP to assessment by that HCP; (3) from initial assessment by HCP to referral to rheumatologist; and (4) from referral to rheumatologist to assessment by that rheumatologist. RESULTS: Data were collected from 482 patients with RA. The median delay across the 10 centres from symptom onset to assessment by the rheumatologist was 24 weeks, with the percentage of patients seen within 12 weeks of symptom onset ranging from 8% to 42%. There were important differences in the levels underlying the total delays at individual centres. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the contribution of patients, professionals and health systems to treatment delay for patients with RA in Europe. Although some centres have strengths in minimising certain types of delay, interventions are required in all centres to ensure timely treatment for patients.

Reliability and validity of the myositis disease activity assessment tool.

OBJECTIVE: To test the interrater reliability and validity of the Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Tool, which consists of the Myositis Intention-to-Treat Activity Index and the Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Visual Analog Scales. METHODS: Two phases of the study were conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the tool, which was modified following the first phase. In the first phase of the reliability study, 123 adult myositis patients were evaluated in 7 centers, and in the second phase 40 patients were evaluated in 2 centers. The validity study included 294 patients in 5 centers in the first phase and 65 patients in 3 centers in the second phase. The interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. The criterion validity was calculated using sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of a grade of A in any system. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to measure the convergent validity of cross-sectional scores between the 2 instruments. RESULTS: There was a 2:1 ratio of female to male patients. There was no significant difference in mean age at diagnosis (46.3 versus 46.8 years) and mean disease duration (7.7 versus 10 years) between the 2 groups recruited for the different phases of the study. There was an improvement in interrater reliability in the second phase of the study. There was a significant improvement in the validity of the assessment tool following modification of the tool. The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of a grade of A in any system improved from 86%, 92%, and 67% in the first phase to 96%, 94%, and 83%, respectively, in the second phase. Convergent validity between the 2 activity tools showed good correlation, ranging from 0.8 to 0.94, for the individual organ systems. CONCLUSION: This is the first major attempt to assess the reliability and validity of a disease activity index in myositis. Our findings indicate that, following within-study modification, the tool appears to be a reliable and valid instrument to assess myositis disease activity.