Risk factors for caries development in primary Sjogren syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the risk factors for caries between patients with primary Sjogren syndrome (SS) and those with non-Sjogren syndrome (NSS) salivary hypofunction and to identify the prevalence of incisal or cervical/root caries in each group. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study conducted at a single center between 2012 and 2015 for assessment of patients with possible SS. Two-hundred and twenty-five (225) patients (99 SS and 126 NSS) participated in the study. RESULTS: Student t test and Wilcoxon's rank sum test were used to evaluate group differences in continuous variables and the χ2 test was used to determined differences in categorical variables. Significant univariate associations were further assessed by using multivariate ordinal regression models. Patients with SS were more likely to have a greater number of total caries (odds ratio [OR] 1.72 [1.03-2.88]; P = .04). And a focus score greater than 1/4 mm2 was associated with greater number of total caries (OR 2.88 [1.05, 7.93]; P = .04]. Adjusted analysis for salivary flow did not show a significant association between stimulated or unstimulated salivary flow or glandular-specific salivary flow and the total number of carious lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with salivary hypofunction secondary to SS do have a greater caries risk compared with patients with salivary hypofunction caused by other factors. In this study cohort, this finding was not associated with salivary flow rates.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). METHODS: We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). METHODS: We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Reliability and Validity of Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Outcome Instruments Among Dermatologists, Pulmonologists, and Rheumatologists.

IMPORTANCE: Dermatologists, pulmonologists, and rheumatologists study and treat patients with sarcoidosis with cutaneous manifestations. The validity of cutaneous sarcoidosis outcome instruments for use across medical specialties remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of cutaneous sarcoidosis outcome instruments for use by dermatologists and nondermatologists treating sarcoidosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cross-sectional study evaluating the use of the Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Instrument (CSAMI) and Sarcoidosis Activity and Severity Index (SASI) to assess cutaneous sarcoidosis disease severity and the Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) as a reference instrument. Four dermatologists, 3 pulmonologists, and 4 rheumatologists evaluated facial cutaneous sarcoidosis in 13 patients treated at a cutaneous sarcoidosis clinic in a 1-day study on October 24, 2014; data analysis was performed from November through December 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Interrater and intrarater reliability and convergent validity, with correlation with quality-of-life measures as the secondary outcome. RESULTS: All instruments demonstrated excellent intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability (reported as intraclass correlation coefficient [95% CI]) was good for the CSAMI Activity scale (0.69 [0.51-0.87]) and PGA (0.66 [0.47-0.85]), weak for the CSAMI Damage scale (0.26 [0.11-0.52]), and excellent for the modified Facial SASI (0.78 [0.63-0.91]). The CSAMI Activity scale and modified Facial SASI showed moderate correlations (95% CI) with the PGA (0.67 [0.57-0.75] and 0.57 [0.45-0.66], respectively). The CSAMI Activity scale but not the modified Facial SASI showed significant correlations (95% CI) with quality-of-life instruments, such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index (Spearman rank correlation, 0.70 [0.25-0.90]) and the Skin Stigma raw score of the Sarcoidosis Assessment Tool (Pearson product moment correlation, 0.56 [0.01-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The CSAMI and SASI were reliable and valid in assessing cutaneous sarcoidosis among our diverse group of specialists. The CSAMI Activity score also correlated with quality-of-life measures and suggested construct validity. These results lend credibility to expand the use of the CSAMI and SASI by dermatologists and nondermatologists in assessing cutaneous sarcoidosis disease activity.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-associated dermatomyositis.

BACKGROUND: Dermatomyositis is an autoimmune disease of unknown etiology characterized by inflammation of the skin and muscles. Several medications have been implicated in the development of dermatomyositis; however, the disease has rarely been linked to the use of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. We report 4 cases of dermatomyositis that developed or were exacerbated by exposure to the TNF inhibitors etanercept and adalimumab. Observation Four patients with symptoms of inflammatory arthritis were treated with TNF inhibitors for a duration ranging from 2 months to 2 years. All 4 patients developed symptoms consistent with dermatomyositis, including inflammatory rash and muscle weakness. Their symptoms persisted after discontinuation of the treatment with the TNF inhibitors but responded to treatment with corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have been associated with the onset of a number of autoimmune disorders, most commonly vasculitis and a lupuslike syndrome. Rarely have they been associated with dermatomyositis. The 4 cases reported herein indicate that TNF inhibitor use can be associated with either induction or exacerbation of dermatomyositis.

A roadmap for education to improve the quality of care in gout.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe obstacles to optimum management of gout by primary care physicians and to propose educational interventions to improve care. RECENT FINDINGS: In the past, gout education has been hampered by infrequency of continuing medical education courses, loss of excitement for a disease in which therapies have not changed (until recently), insufficient evidence-based medicine, and the lack of motivation by physicians to re-learn this disease once in active practice. We identify 10 common myths that impede appropriate treatment of gout, identify gaps in evidence-based medicine that perpetuate those myths, and propose opportunities to improve education on these myths. It is through better gout-centered education that quality of care in gout can be enhanced. Residency may be one of the key points of intervention. As more evidence-based medicine publications address the optimum management of gout, national re-education can occur. More outreach by community rheumatologists to primary care physicians through educational programs and improved referral letters can help re-educate practitioners. Lastly, an often overlooked engine to change physician practices is consumer education, but current patient education programs are lacking. SUMMARY: Novel education interventions for physician trainees, primary care physicians, and patients are proposed to improve the care of patients with gout.