Management of adult-onset Still's disease: evidence- and consensus-based recommendations by experts.

BACKGROUND: Adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) is a rare condition characterized by fevers, rash, and arthralgia/arthritis. Most doctors treating AOSD in the Netherlands treat <5 patients per year. Currently, there is no internationally accepted treatment guideline for AOSD. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a Delphi panel aimed at reaching consensus about diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with AOSD and to use the outcomes as a basis for a treatment algorithm. METHODS: The Delphi panel brought together 18 AOSD experts: rheumatologists, internists and paediatricians. The Delphi process consisted of 3 rounds. In the first two rounds, online list of questions and statements were completed. In the third round, final statements were discussed during a virtual meeting and a final vote took place. Consensus threshold was set at 80%. Two targeted literature searches were performed identifying the level of evidence of the consensus-based statements. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 29 statements, including statements related to diagnosis and diagnostic tests, definition of response and remission, the therapy, the use of methotrexate, and tapering of treatment. The panel consented on reduction of the use of glucocorticoids to avoid side-effect, and preferred the use of biologics over conventional treatment. The role of interleukin-1 and interleukin-6 blocking agents was considered important in the treatment of AOSD. CONCLUSIONS: In this Delphi panel, a high level of consensus was achieved on recommendations for diagnosis and therapy of AOSD that can serve as a basis for a treatment guideline.

How do patients with systemic sclerosis experience currently provided healthcare and how should we measure its quality?

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators. METHODS: An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0-4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators. CONCLUSION: The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc.

[Anakinra in refractory adult onset Still's disease]. / Anakinra bij moeilijk behandelbare ziekte van Still.

BACKGROUND: Adult onset Still's disease (AOSD) is a rare--but potentially dangerous and difficult to treat--generalized auto-inflammatory disease which shares some similarities with the systemic form of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SoJIA or Still's disease). CASE DESCRIPTION: AOSD was diagnosed in 2 young adult women of 21 and 23 years old. The disease was found to be resistant to treatment in these patients. The patients were treated successively with NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, methotrexate and anti tumour necrosis factor(TNF)-α antagonists, with only partial effects or none at all. Treatment with the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra was subsequently started, which led to remission of AOSD. CONCLUSION: These cases illustrate the clinical spectrum of AOSD and the possibility of an important addition to the therapeutic arsenal for treatment of refractory AOSD.

Diagnostic and predictive value of acute-phase reactants in adult undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available literature on the diagnostic and predictive value of acute-phase reactants in adult undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA) as an evidence base for generating multinational clinical practice recommendations in the 3e Initiative in Rheumatology. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2008 meetings of the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism, searching for prognostic and diagnostic markers of acute-phase reactants in adult UPIA. Articles that fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria were systematically reviewed, and the quality was appraised. Likelihood ratios (LR), sensitivity, and specificity for diagnostic and prognostic outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 18 publications out of 3699 identified references were included in the review. Only a small number of studies with significant heterogeneity, including different outcome measures and different cutoff values, were eligible for review, so pooling data was not possible. Overall, LR showed poor diagnostic and prognostic performance for most investigated acute-phase reactants. Available data showed some value for erythrocyte sedimentation rate in establishing a diagnosis in patients with undifferentiated arthritis; some prognostic and diagnostic value for C-reactive protein; some prognostic value for plasma viscosity in predicting persistence of arthritis; and some diagnostic value for sulfhydryl levels and matrix metalloproteinase-3 in establishing a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSION: There is little published evidence concerning the diagnostic and predictive value of acute-phase reactants in patients with UPIA. Studies were heterogeneous, and "undifferentiated arthritis" was not well defined or was equivocally defined. The role of acute-phase reactants in diagnosing and predicting outcome in patients presenting with undifferentiated arthritis is limited.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of synovial biopsy in adult undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic and prognostic value of synovial biopsy in undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA) as an evidence base for generating clinical practice recommendations. The results lead to multinational recommendations in the 3e Initiative in Rheumatology. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review according to the PICO strategy (Patients, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome). Using a designed search strategy we ran literature searches using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2008 meetings of the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism. Articles fulfilling predefined inclusion criteria were reviewed, and quality appraisal was performed. RESULTS: Six publications from a total of 3265 diagnostic and 3271 prognostic studies were included, of which 2 were review articles. Data pooling was impossible because of significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Three themes of outcome were identified: anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) staining in synovium, immunohistochemistry (CD22, CD38, CD68), and vascular patterns. Prognostic and diagnostic value was poor for these themes, although diagnostic trends favoring a particular diagnosis were identified. In contrast to serological ACPA testing, ACPA staining was shown not to be specific for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Synovial CD22 and CD38 positivity seem to differentiate between RA and non-RA, while synovial CD38 and CD68 positivity can differentiate among RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), and other diagnoses. Vascular patterns in undifferentiated arthritis are insufficiently specific to differentiate between SpA and RA. CONCLUSION: There is sparse evidence that synovial biopsy has diagnostic or prognostic value in patients with UPIA in clinical care. We urgently need systematic studies investigating the diagnostic and prognostic potential of synovial markers. A clear, broadly accepted, and unequivocal definition of undifferentiated arthritis is required as a starting point.

Algorithm for identification of undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a multinational collaboration through the 3e initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an algorithm for identification of undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA). METHODS: An algorithm for identification of UPIA was developed by consensus during a roundtable meeting with an expert panel. It was informed by systematic reviews of the literature used to generate 10 recommendations for the investigation and followup of UPIA through the 3e initiative. The final recommendations from the 3e UPIA Initiative were made available to the panel to guide development of the algorithm. The algorithm drew on the clinical experience of the consensus panel and evidence from the literature where available. RESULTS: In patients presenting with joint swelling a thorough evaluation is required prior to diagnosing UPIA. After excluding trauma, the differential diagnosis should be formulated based on history and physical examination. A minimum set of investigations is suggested for all patients, with additional ones dependent on the most probable differential diagnoses. The diagnosis of UPIA can be made if, following these evaluations, a more specific diagnosis is not reached. Once a diagnosis of UPIA is established, patients should be closely followed as they may progress to a specific diagnosis, remit, or persist as UPIA, and additional investigations may be required over time. CONCLUSION: Our algorithm presents a diagnostic approach to identifying UPIA in patients presenting with joint swelling, incorporating the dynamic nature of the condition with the potential to evolve over time.