Clinical and Economic Benefit of Achieving Disease Control in Psoriatic Arthritis and Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Retrospective Analysis from the OM1 Registry.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the clinical and economic benefit of achieving disease control in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), thus we aimed to assess the impact of disease control on healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct medical costs among US patients with PsA or AS over 1 year. METHODS: Data were derived from the US OM1 PsA/AS registries (PsA: 1/2013-12/2020; AS: 01/2013-4/2021) and the Optum Insight Clinformatics® Data Mart to identify adult patients with PsA or AS. Two cohorts were created: with disease control and without disease control. Disease control was defined as modified Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA28) ≤ 4 for PsA and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) < 4 for AS. Outcomes were all-cause inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) visits and associated costs over a 1-year follow-up period. Mean costs per person per year (PPPY) were assessed descriptively and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for the likelihood of HCRU by logistic regression. RESULTS: The study included 1235 PsA (with disease control: N = 217; without: N = 1018) and 581 AS patients (with disease control: N = 342; without: N = 239). Patients without disease control were more likely to have an inpatient (aOR [95% CI]; PsA: 3.0 [0.9, 10.1]; AS: 7.7 [2.3, 25.1]) or ED (PsA: 1.6 [0.6, 4.2]; AS: 3.5 [1.5, 8.3]) visit than those with disease control. Those without disease control, vs. those with disease control, had greater PPPY costs associated with inpatient (PsA: $1550 vs. $443), outpatient (PsA: $1789 vs. $1327; AS: $2498 vs. $2023), and ED (PsA: $114 vs. $57; AS: $316 vs. $50) visits. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study demonstrate lower disease activity among patients with PsA and AS is associated with less HCRU and lower costs over the following year.

The effect of secukinumab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis in a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 FUTURE 5 trial (NCT02404350) showed the clinical and radiographical efficacy of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis. This analysis aimed to assess the effect of secukinumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: FUTURE 5 was a phase 3, multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial in which patients who were 18 years old or older, met the classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis at screening, and had symptoms of moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis for at least 6 months were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab 300 mg, 150 mg, 150 mg no loading dose (NL), or placebo weekly from baseline to week 4 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The prespecified PROs of the FUTURE 5 trial were assessed first in the overall population. We report mean changes from baseline and the proportion of patients reporting improvements equal to or more than the minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores equal to or more than the normative values for patient global assessments (PtGA) of disease activity; psoriasis and arthritis visual analogue scale (VAS) scores; pain VAS; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F); and quality of life questionnaires. Patients were then stratified and assessed according to their tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor status (TNF-naive and TNF-inadequate responder [TNF-IR] populations) as a post-hoc analysis. FINDINGS: Patients in all secukinumab groups reported significant least-squares mean changes from placebo at week 16 in all PROs except SF-36 mental component summary (MCS), irrespective of TNF inhibitor use. These included PtGA (300 mg difference vs placebo -12·2 [95% CI -16·3 to -8·1], 150 mg -8·22 [-12·4 to -4·1], 150 mg NL -8·3 [-12·5 to -4·2]; all p<0·0001), pain VAS (300 mg -14·3 [-18·3 to -10·2], 150 mg -11·5 [-15·6 to -7·5], 150 mg NL -11·3 [-15·3 to -7·2]; all p<0·0001), HAQ-DI (300 mg -0·33 [-0·42 to -0·24], 150 mg -0·23 [-0·32 to -0·14], 150 mg NL -0·24 [-0·33 to -0·15]; all p<0·0001), and FACIT-F (300 mg 4·8 [3·2 to 6·4], 150 mg 4·2 [2·6 to 5·8], 150 mg NL 3·5 [1·9 to 5·1]; all p<0·0001). Similarly, the proportion of patients with improvements equal to or better than MCID at week 16 was higher in the secukinumab group compared with the placebo group for most PROs except SF-36 (MCS), regardless of TNF inhibitor use. INTERPRETATION: Secukinumab resulted in early, statistically significant, clinically meaningful, sustained improvements in PROs across all doses compared with placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. These improvements were seen irrespective of previous TNF inhibitor use, in a post-hoc analysis. These results indicate that secukinumab provides comprehensive improvement for patients with psoriatic arthritis, regardless of previous therapy. FUNDING: Novartis.

Clinical Utility and Cost Savings in Predicting Inadequate Response to Anti-TNF Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The PrismRA® test identifies rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who are unlikely to respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies. This study evaluated the clinical and financial outcomes of incorporating PrismRA into routine clinical care of RA patients. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was created to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in the 12-month period following first biologic treatment. Two treatment strategies were compared: (1) observed clinical decision-making based on a 175-patient cohort receiving an anti-TNF therapy as their first biologic after failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and (2) modeled clinical decision-making of the same population using PrismRA results to inform first-line biologic treatment choice. Modeled costs include biologic drug pharmacy, non-biologic pharmacy, and total medical costs. The odds of inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies and various components of patient care were calculated based on PrismRA results. RESULTS: Identifying predicted inadequate responders to anti-TNF therapies resulted in a modeled 38% increase in ACR50 response to first-line biologic therapies. The fraction of patients who achieved an ACR50 response to any therapy (TNFi and others) within the 12-month period was 33% higher in the PrismRA-stratified population than in the unstratified population (59 vs. 44%, respectively). When therapy prescriptions were modeled according to PrismRA results, cost savings were modeled for all financial variables: overall costs (4% decreased total, 19% decreased on ineffective treatments), total biologic drug pharmacy (4% total, 23% ineffective), non-biologic pharmacy (2% total, 19% ineffective), and medical costs (6% total, 19% ineffective). Female sex was the clinical metric that showed the greatest association with inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies (odds ratio 2.42, 95% confidence interval 1.20, 4.88). CONCLUSIONS: If PrismRA is implemented into routine clinical care as modeled, predicting which RA patients will have an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies could save > $7 million in overall ineffective healthcare costs per 1000 patients tested and increase targeted DMARD response rates in RA.

Disease activity measures at baseline predict structural damage progression: data from the randomized, controlled AMPLE and AVERT trials.

OBJECTIVE: Data from two double-blind, randomized, Phase III studies were analysed to investigate the ability of Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, DAS28 (CRP), modified (M)-DAS28 (CRP) and Simplified or Clinical Disease Activity Indices to predict structural damage progression in RA. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included data from the 2-year Abatacept vs adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background MTX (AMPLE) trial in biologic-naïve patients with active RA (<5 years) and an inadequate response to MTX, and the 12-month treatment period of the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment (AVERT) trial in MTX-naïve patients with early RA (⩽2 years) and poor prognostic indicators. Adjusted logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between baseline disease activity and structural damage progression (defined as change from baseline greater than the smallest detectable change) at 12 and 24 months in AMPLE and 6 and 12 months in AVERT. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the impact of baseline disease activity on structural damage progression were calculated. RESULTS: Adjusted logistic regression analyses included all randomized and treated patients in AMPLE (N = 646) and those who received abatacept plus MTX or MTX monotherapy in AVERT (N = 235). Baseline Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, DAS28 (CRP) and M-DAS28 (CRP) scores significantly predicted structural progression at months 12 and 24 in AMPLE (P < 0.05) and months 6 and 12 in AVERT (P < 0.01), and were stronger predictors than Simplified or Clinical Disease Activity Indices. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis of two patient populations with RA, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, DAS28 (CRP) and M-DAS28 (CRP) were good at predicting structural damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00929864 (AMPLE); NCT01142726 (AVERT).

2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology Recommended Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measurements to facilitate a treat-to-target approach in routine clinical care. METHODS: A working group conducted a systematic literature review from the time of the prior ACR recommendations literature search. Properties of disease activity measures were abstracted, and study quality was assessed using the Consensus-Based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4-point scoring method, allowing for overall level of evidence assessment. Measures that fulfilled a minimum standard were identified, and through a modified Delphi process preferred measures were selected for regular use in most clinic settings. RESULTS: The search identified 5,199 articles, of which 110 were included in the review. This search identified 46 RA disease activity measures that contained patient, provider, laboratory, and/or imaging data. Descriptions of the measures, properties, study quality, level of evidence, and feasibility were abstracted and scored. Following a modified Delphi process, 11 measures fulfilled a minimum standard for regular use in most clinic settings, and 5 measures were recommended: the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints with Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate or C-Reactive Protein Level, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, and Patient Activity Scale-II. CONCLUSION: We have updated prior ACR recommendations for preferred RA disease activity measures, identifying 11 measures that met a minimum standard for regular use and 5 measures that were preferred for regular use in most clinic settings.

Osteoarthritis is as severe as rheumatoid arthritis: evidence over 40 years according to the same measure in each disease.

Osteoarthritis (OA) may be associated with substantial work disability, morbidity, costs, and increased mortality rates, often similar to rheumatoid arthritis (RA), documented in many published reports over the last 4 decades. However, OA generally has been viewed as less severe than RA. This discrepancy may be explained in part by:a) RA may have been considerably more severe in the past, prior to effective therapies.b) most older individuals have radiographic joint damage, which often is not associated with clinical symptoms.c) RA is associated with abnormal laboratory tests, which are regarded as conveying greater significance than symptoms of pain and disability according to a "biomedical model," the dominant paradigm of modern medicine.d) Most reports of OA and RA have emphasised differences between the 2 diseases even beyond laboratory abnormalities in pathogenesis, physical findings, and imaging.e) Even pain and functional disability seen in both diseases are assessed using different patient self-report questionnaires, a WOMAC (Western Ontario McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index) in OA, and HAQ (health assessment questionnaire) in RA.An identical measure is required for optimal direct comparisons, which has been used in 8 studies performed between 1979 and 2019 at 8 sites in North America, Europe, and Australia. These studies were primarily based on retrospective analyses at sites which collected a patient questionnaire in routine clinical care by all patients at all visits to inform clinical decisions. A pain visual analogue scale (VAS) was higher in OA compared to RA in 11/12 patient groups, while physical function on a HAQ (health assessment questionnaire) or derivative MDHAQ (multidimensional HAQ) and RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data) were slightly higher in RA before 2013 and higher in OA in later reports. Furthermore, a study of population-based data from the 1978 US Health Interview Survey indicated similar levels of disability and earnings losses according to surrogate variables for OA and RA. Therefore, at least over the last 40 years, pain and functional disability in OA have appeared to be severe and similar to RA. These observations also-illustrate the potential value of using an identical patient questionnaire in all patients at all visits in routine care settings, analogous to using the same laboratory tests such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or C-reactive protein (CRP) in all rheumatic diseases, and maintaining a database of the results for later analyses.

Minimal Clinically Important Improvement of Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of RAPID-3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: RAPID-3 was computed before and after treatment escalation in a prospective study of adults with active RA. Patient judgment of improvement was used as the standard for a receiver-operating characteristic curve, from which MCII was estimated. RESULTS: Mean RAPID-3 improved from 16.3 to 11.1 between visits. MCII was -3.8 based on simultaneously optimized sensitivity and specificity, -3.5 using the 0.80 specificity criterion, and -4.1 using the Youden index. CONCLUSION: RAPID-3 improvement of 3.8/30 units appears clinically meaningful.

Evaluation of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib by RAPID3: post hoc analyses from two phase 3 trials.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We evaluated the relationship between disease activity, according to Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) after 6-month treatment with tofacitinib, and long-term outcomes at 24 months. This was a post hoc analysis of two 24-month, phase 3, randomized controlled trials in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve (ORAL Start [NCT01039688]) or MTX-inadequate responder patients (ORAL Scan [NCT00847613]) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) as monotherapy or with background MTX. RAPID3 scores were calculated at baseline, month (M)6, and M24, and defined as remission (≤ 3), low (LDA; > 3-≤ 6), moderate (MDA; > 6-≤ 12), or high disease activity (HDA; > 12). Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores, and radiographic non-progression (modified Total Sharp Scores ≤ 0) at M24 were evaluated by M6 RAPID3 response. Among patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID, respectively, 42.2 and 51.5% (ORAL Start) and 29.8 and 39.0% (ORAL Scan) achieved RAPID3 remission/LDA at M6. Most patients maintained/improved RAPID3 responses at M24. A higher proportion of patients in RAPID3 remission/LDA versus MDA/HDA at M6 achieved CDAI remission, reported normative HAQ-DI scores (< 0.5), and achieved both normative HAQ-DI scores and radiographic non-progression at M24. Patients achieving RAPID3 remission/LDA after 6-month treatment with tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID have improved long-term outcomes versus patients with MDA/HDA. These findings support the use of RAPID3 to monitor longer-term disease activity in conjunction with physician-assessed measures.

MDHAQ/RAPID3 scores in patients with osteoarthritis are similar to or higher than in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional study from current routine rheumatology care at four sites.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) versus rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for scores on a patient self-report MDHAQ/RAPID3 (Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire/Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), and for physician global assessment (DOCGL). METHODS: All patients with all diagnoses complete an MDHAQ/RAPID3 at all routine rheumatology visits in the waiting area before seeing a rheumatologist at four sites, one in Australia and three in the USA. The two-page MDHAQ includes 0-10 scores for physical function (in 10 activities), pain and patient global assessment [on 0-10 visual analogue scales (VAS)], compiled into a 0-30 RAPID3, as well as fatigue and self-report painful joint count scales. Rheumatologists estimate a 0-10 DOCGL VAS. Demographic, MDHAQ/RAPID3 and DOCGL data from a random visit were compared in patients with RA versus patients with OA using multivariate analysis of variance, adjusted for age, disease duration and formal education level. RESULTS: Median RAPID3 was higher in OA versus RA at all four sites (11.7-16.8 vs 6.2-11.8) (p<0.001 at three sites). Median DOCGL in OA versus RA was 5 vs 4, 4 vs 3.7, 2.2 vs 2.5 and 2 vs 1. Patterns were similar for individual RAPID3 items, fatigue and painful joint scales, and in stratified analyses of patients aged 55-70. CONCLUSION: Patient MDHAQ/RAPID3 and physician DOCGL indicate similar or higher disease burden in OA versus RA. Routine MDHAQ/RAPID3 allows direct comparisons of the two diseases. The findings suggest possible revision of current clinical and public policy views concerning OA.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.

Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 and the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Remission Definitions as Predictors of Radiographic Outcome in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial With Tocilizumab.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism established definitions of remission for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on composite scores, including tender (TJC) and swollen joint counts (SJC), patient global visual analog scale (VAS) score, laboratory tests, and, in the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), the physician global score. Time constraints on a physician's schedule demand an easy yet accurate tool to measure disease activity. We assessed the predictive ability of the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) with and without a single swollen joint versus the SDAI and/or Boolean remission criteria for functional and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: Data were from the Tocilizumab Safety and the Prevention of Structural Joint Damage phase III trial in RA patients. We assessed the ability at year 1 of a RAPID3 score of ≤3 + 1 SJC, RAPID3 score of ≤3 (remission) without SJC, SDAI score of ≤3.3 (remission), and/or Boolean remission (SJC, TJC, patient global VAS, and C-reactive protein level [mg/dl] all ≤1) to predict year 2 Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) score of ≤0.5 (normal), no worsening of HAQ DI score from year 1, and no worsening of Genant-modified Total Sharp Score from year 1. RESULTS: Among 690 patients, the mean ± SD baseline Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was 6.5 ± 0.96, RAPID3 score was 14.2 ± 5.51, and the SDAI score was 41.7 ± 13.01. Achieving year 1 measures was associated with good functional and radiographic outcomes at year 2. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were 49.1%, 83.2%, 37.4%, and 88.9% (RAPID3 remission); 26.4%, 91.7%, 36.8%, and 87.1% (RAPID3 + 1 SJC); 26.7%, 90.9%, 37.3%, and 85.9% (SDAI remission); and 17.0%, 96.6%, 47.4%, and 86.4% (Boolean remission), respectively. CONCLUSION: The predictive ability of RAPID3 (with or without joint count) was similar to that of SDAI and Boolean criteria.

Three-Quarters of Persons in the US Population Reporting a Clinical Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia Do Not Satisfy Fibromyalgia Criteria: The 2012 National Health Interview Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Although fibromyalgia criteria have been in effect for decades, little is known about how the fibromyalgia diagnosis is applied and understood by clinicians and patients. We used the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to determine the prevalence of self-reported clinician diagnosed fibromyalgia and then compared demographics, symptoms, disability and medical utilization measures of persons with a clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia that did not meet diagnostic criteria (false-positive or prior [F/P] fibromyalgia) to persons with and without criteria-positive fibromyalgia. METHODS: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) collected information about both clinical diagnosis and symptoms of fibromyalgia that was appropriately weighted to represent 225,726,257 US adults. Surrogate NHIS diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia were developed based on the level of polysymptomatic distress (PSD) as characterized in the 2011 modified American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR) for fibromyalgia. Persons with F/P fibromyalgia were compared with persons who do not have fibromyalgia and those meeting surrogate NHIS fibromyalgia criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1.78% of persons reporting a clinical diagnosis, 73.5% did not meet NHIS fibromyalgia criteria. The prevalence of F/P fibromyalgia is 1.3%. F/P fibromyalgia is associated with a mild degree of polysymptomatic distress (NHIS PSD score 6.2) and characterized by frequent but not widespread pain and insomnia. Measures of work disability and medical utilization in F/P fibromyalgia were equal to that seen with NHIS criteria positive fibromyalgia and were 6-7x greater in F/P fibromyalgia than in non-fibromyalgia persons. F/P fibromyalgia was best predicted by being female (Odds Ratio [OR] 8.81), married (OR 3.27), and white (OR 1.96). In contrast, being a white, married woman was only modestly predictive of NHIS (criteria positive) fibromyalgia (OR 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clinically diagnosed fibromyalgia cases in the US do not reach levels of severity necessary and sufficient for diagnosis. The clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia is disproportionally dependent on demographic and social factors rather than the symptoms themselves. Diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia appear to be used as a vague guide by clinicians and patients, and allow for substantial diagnostic expansion of fibromyalgia.

Limitations of clinical trials in chronic diseases: is the efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) underestimated in polyarticular psoriatic arthritis on the basis of limitations of clinical trials more than on limitations of MTX, as was seen in rheumatoid arthritis?

Clinical trials are the optimal method to establish efficacy of a drug versus placebo or another drug. Nonetheless, important limitations are seen, particularly in chronic diseases over long periods, although most are ignored. Pragmatic limitations of clinical trials include a relatively short observation period, suboptimal dosage schedules, suboptimal surrogate markers for long-term outcomes, statistically significant results which may not be clinically unimportant and vice versa. Even ideal clinical trials have intrinsic limitations, including the influence of design on results, data reported in groups which ignore individual variation, non-standard observer-dependent interpretation of a balance of efficacy and toxicity, and distortion of a "placebo effect." Limitations are seen in many clinical trials of methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The first MTX clinical trial in rheumatology documented excellent efficacy in PsA, but frequent adverse events in 1964, explained by intravenous doses up to 150 kg. MTX was abandoned until the 1980s for RA, while gold salts and penicillamine were termed "remission-inducing," on the basis limitations of clinical trials. In the most recent MTX in PsA (MIPA) trial, all outcomes favoured MTX, but only patient and physician global estimates met the p<0.05 criterion. A conclusion of "no evidence for MTX improving synovitis" appears explained by insufficient statistical power, wide individual variation, no subsets, low doses, and other limitations. MTX appears less efficacious in PsA than RA, but may be underestimated in PsA, similar to historical problems in RA, resulting more from limitations of clinical trials than from limitations of MTX.

The Prevalence and Characteristics of Fibromyalgia in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey.

BACKGROUND: Most knowledge of fibromyalgia comes from the clinical setting, where healthcare-seeking behavior and selection issues influence study results. The characteristics of fibromyalgia in the general population have not been studied in detail. METHODS: We developed and tested surrogate study specific criteria for fibromyalgia in rheumatology practices using variables from the US National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the modification (for surveys) of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) preliminary fibromyalgia criteria. The surrogate criteria were applied to the 2012 NHIS and identified persons who satisfied criteria from symptom data. The NHIS weighted sample of 8446 persons represents 225.7 million US adults. RESULTS: Fibromyalgia was identified in 1.75% (95% CI 1.42, 2.07), or 3.94 million persons. However, 73% of identified cases self-reported a physician's diagnosis other than fibromyalgia. Identified cases had high levels of self-reported pain, non-pain symptoms, comorbidity, psychological distress, medical costs, Social Security and work disability. Caseness was associated with gender, education, ethnicity, citizenship and unhealthy behaviors. Demographics, behaviors, and comorbidity were predictive of case status. Examination of the surrogate polysymptomatic distress scale (PSD) of the 2010 ACR criteria found fibromyalgia symptoms extending through the full length of the scale. CONCLUSIONS: Persons identified with criteria-based fibromyalgia have severe symptoms, but most (73%) have not received a clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia. The association of fibromyalgia-like symptoms over the full length of the PSD scale with physiological as well as mental stressors suggests PSD may be a universal response variable rather than one restricted to fibromyalgia.