EULAR definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment according to the current management recommendations, a significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain symptomatic. These patients can be considered to have 'difficult-to-treat RA'. However, uniform terminology and an appropriate definition are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The Task Force in charge of the "Development of EULAR recommendations for the comprehensive management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis" aims to create recommendations for this underserved patient group. Herein, we present the definition of difficult-to-treat RA, as the first step. METHODS: The Steering Committee drafted a definition with suggested terminology based on an international survey among rheumatologists. This was discussed and amended by the Task Force, including rheumatologists, nurses, health professionals and patients, at a face-to-face meeting until sufficient agreement was reached (assessed through voting). RESULTS: The following three criteria were agreed by all Task Force members as mandatory elements of the definition of difficult-to-treat RA: (1) Treatment according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendation and failure of ≥2 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/targeted synthetic DMARDs (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated); (2) presence of at least one of the following: at least moderate disease activity; signs and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease; inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment; rapid radiographic progression; RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life; and (3) the management of signs and/or symptoms is perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat RA can be used in clinical practice, clinical trials and can form a basis for future research.

Initiating tocilizumab, with or without methotrexate, compared with starting methotrexate with prednisone within step-up treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis: an indirect comparison of effectiveness and safety of the U-Act-Early and CAMERA-II treat-to-target trials.

OBJECTIVES: Methotrexate (MTX), often combined with low moderately dosed prednisone, is still the cornerstone of initial treatment for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is not known how this strategy compares with initial treatment with a biological. We therefore compared the effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ), or TCZ plus MTX (TCZ+MTX) with MTX plus 10 mg prednisone (MTX+pred), all initiated within a treat-to-target treatment strategy in early RA. METHODS: Using individual patient data of two trials, we indirectly compared tight-controlled treat-to-target strategies initiating TCZ (n=103), TCZ+MTX (n=106) or MTX+pred (n=117), using initiation of MTX (n=227) as reference. Primary outcome was Disease Activity Score assessing 28 joints (DAS28) over 24 months. To assess the influence of acute phase reactants (APRs), a disease activity composite outcome score without APR (ie, modification of the Clinical Disease Activity Index (m-CDAI)) was analysed. Secondary outcomes were remission (several definitions), physical function and radiographic progression. Multilevel models were used to account for clustering within trials and patients over time, correcting for relevant confounders. RESULTS: DAS28 over 24 months was lower for TCZ+MTX than for MTX+Pred (mean difference: -0.62 (95% CI -1.14 to -0.10)). Remission was more often achieved in TCZ+MTX and in TCZ versus MTX+pred (p=0.02/0.05, respectively). Excluding APRs from the disease activity outcome score, TCZ-based strategies showed a slightly higher m-CDAI compared with MTX+pred, but this was not statistically significant. Other outcomes were also not statistically significantly different between the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early RA, although TCZ-based strategies resulted in better DAS28 and remission rates compared with MTX+pred, at least part of these effects may be due to a specific effect of TCZ on APRs.

Clinical outcomes of biliary drainage of malignant biliary obstruction due to colorectal cancer metastases: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Malignant biliary obstruction is an ominous complication of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Biliary drainage is frequently performed to relieve symptoms of jaundice or enable palliative systemic therapy, but effective drainage can be difficult to accomplish. The aim of this study is to summarize literature on clinical outcomes of biliary drainage in mCRC patients with malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: We searched Medline and EMBASE for studies that included patients with malignant biliary obstruction secondary to mCRC, treated with endoscopic and/or percutaneous biliary drainage. We summarized available data on technical success, clinical success, adverse events, systemic therapy administration and survival after biliary drainage. RESULTS: After screening 3584 references and assessing 509 full-text articles, seven cohort studies were included. In these studies, rates of technical success, clinical success and adverse events varied between 63%-94%, 42%-81%, and 19%-39%, respectively. Subsequent chemotherapy was administered in 17%-56% of patients. Overall survival varied between 40 and 122 days across studies (278-365 days in patients who received subsequent chemotherapy, 42-61 days in patients who did not). CONCLUSIONS: Successful biliary drainage in mCRC patients can be challenging to achieve and is frequently associated with adverse events. Overall survival after biliary drainage is limited, but is significantly longer in patients treated with subsequent systemic therapy. Expected benefits of biliary drainage should be carefully weighed against its risks.