Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of American College of Rheumatology, EULAR, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Criteria Against Clinically Relevant Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From the CHECK Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the EULAR, American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria by using clinical experts' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee osteoarthritis (OA) as the outcome of interest. METHODS: In a previous study, we recruited clinical experts to evaluate longitudinal (5-, 8-, and 10-year follow-up) clinical and radiographic data of symptomatic knees from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study for the presence or absence of clinically relevant OA. In the current study, ACR, EULAR, and NICE criteria were applied to the same 5-, 8-, and 10-year follow-up data; then a knee was diagnosed with OA if fulfilling the criteria at one of the three time points (F1), two of the time points (F2), or at all three time points (F3). Using clinically relevant OA as the reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the three criteria were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 539 participants for a total of 833 examined knees were included. Thirty-six percent of knees were diagnosed with clinically relevant OA by experts. Sixty-seven percent to 74% of the knees received the same diagnosis (OA or non-OA) by the three criteria sets for the different definitions (F1 to F3). EULAR consistently (F1 through F3) had the highest specificity, and NICE consistently had the highest sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The diagnoses only moderately overlapped among the three criteria sets. The EULAR criteria seemed to be more suitable for study enrollment (when aimed at recruiting clinically relevant OA knees), given the highest specificities. The NICE criteria, given the highest sensitivities, could be more useful for an initial diagnosis in clinical practice.

Points to consider: EULAR-UEMS standards for the training of European rheumatologists.

BACKGROUND: Postgraduate rheumatology training programmes are already established at a national level in most European countries. However, previous work has highlighted a substantial level of heterogeneity in the organisation and, in part, content of programmes. OBJECTIVE: To define competences and standards of knowledge, skills and professional behaviours required for the training of rheumatologists. METHODS: A European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task force (TF) of 23 experts, including two members of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) section of rheumatology, was convened. The mapping phase consisted of the retrieval of key documents on specialty training in rheumatology and other related specialties across a broad set of international sources. The content of these documents was extracted and represented the foundation for the document draft that underwent several rounds of online discussion within the TF, and afterwards was also distributed to a broad group of stakeholders for collecting feedback. The list of generated competences was voted on during the TF meetings, while the level of agreement (LoA) with each statement was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: A total of 132 international training curricula were retrieved and extracted. In addition to the TF members, 253 stakeholders commented and voted on the competences through an online anonymous survey. The TF developed (1) an overarching framework indicating the areas that should be addressed during training, (2) 7 domains defining broad areas that rheumatology trainees should master by the end of the training programme, (3) 8 core themes defining the nuances of each domain and (4) 28 competences that trainees should acquire to cover each of the areas outlined in the overarching framework. A high LoA was achieved for all competences. CONCLUSION: These points to consider for EULAR-UEMS standards for the training of European rheumatologists are now defined. Their dissemination and use can hopefully contribute to harmonising training across European countries.

Non-pharmacological interventions to promote work participation in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the EULAR taskforce on healthy and sustainable work participation.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the evidence on effectiveness of non-pharmacological (ie, non-drug, non-surgical) interventions on work participation (sick leave, work status and presenteeism) in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS) was performed. Qualitative (RCTs/LOS) and quantitative (RCTs) evidence syntheses were conducted. Mixed-effects restricted maximum likelihood models were used to combine effect estimates, using standardised mean differences (SMDs) as the summary measure for each outcome domain separately, with a negative SMD favouring the intervention over comparator. Subgroup analyses were performed for type of RMD, risk status at baseline regarding adverse work outcomes and intervention characteristics. RESULTS: Of 10 153 records, 64 studies (37 RCTs and 27 LOS; corresponding to k=71 treatment comparisons) were included. Interventions were mostly conducted in clinical settings (44 of 71, 62%). Qualitative synthesis suggested clear beneficial effects of 7 of 64 (11%) interventions for sick leave, 1 of 18 (6%) for work status and 1 of 17 (6%) for presenteeism. Quantitative synthesis (37 RCTs; k=43 treatment comparisons) suggested statistically significant but only small clinical effects on each outcome (SMDsick leave (95% CI)=-0.23 (-0.33 to -0.13; k=42); SMDwork status=-0.38 (-0.63 to -0.12; k=9); SMDpresenteeism=-0.25 (-0.39 to -0.12; k=13)). CONCLUSION: In people with RMDs, empirical evidence shows that non-pharmacological interventions have small effects on work participation. Effectiveness depends on contextual factors such as disease, population risk status, intervention characteristics and outcome of interest, highlighting the importance of tailoring interventions.

A machine learning approach reveals features related to clinicians' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify highly ranked features related to clinicians' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee OA. METHODS: General practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs) were recruited to evaluate 5-10 years follow-up clinical and radiographic data of knees from the CHECK cohort for the presence of clinically relevant OA. GPs and SPs were gathered in pairs; each pair consisted of one GP and one SP, and the paired clinicians independently evaluated the same subset of knees. A diagnosis was made for each knee by the GP and SP before and after viewing radiographic data. Nested 5-fold cross-validation enhanced random forest models were built to identify the top 10 features related to the diagnosis. RESULTS: Seventeen clinician pairs evaluated 1106 knees with 139 clinical and 36 radiographic features. GPs diagnosed clinically relevant OA in 42% and 43% knees, before and after viewing radiographic data, respectively. SPs diagnosed in 43% and 51% knees, respectively. Models containing top 10 features had good performance for explaining clinicians' diagnosis with area under the curve ranging from 0.76-0.83. Before viewing radiographic data, quantitative symptomatic features (i.e. WOMAC scores) were the most important ones related to the diagnosis of both GPs and SPs; after viewing radiographic data, radiographic features appeared in the top lists for both, but seemed to be more important for SPs than GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Random forest models presented good performance in explaining clinicians' diagnosis, which helped to reveal typical features of patients recognized as clinically relevant knee OA by clinicians from two different care settings.

2021 EULAR points to consider to support people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases to participate in healthy and sustainable paid work.

AIM: As part of its strategic objectives for 2023, EULAR aims to improve the work participation of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). One strategic initiative focused on the development of overarching points to consider (PtC) to support people with RMDs in healthy and sustainable paid work participation. METHODS: EULAR's standardised operating procedures were followed. A steering group identified six research areas on paid work participation. Three systematic literature reviews, several non-systematic reviews and two surveys were conducted. A multidisciplinary taskforce of 25 experts from 10 European countries and Canada formulated overarching principles and PtC after discussion of the results of literature reviews and surveys. Consensus was obtained through voting, with levels of agreement obtained anonymously. RESULTS: Three overarching principles and 11 PtC were formulated. The PtC recognise various stakeholders are important to improving work participation. Five PtC emphasise shared responsibilities (eg, obligation to provide active support) (PtC 1, 2, 3, 5, 6). One encourages people with RMDs to discuss work limitations when necessary at each phase of their working life (PtC 4) and two focus on the role of interventions by healthcare providers or employers (PtC 7, 8). Employers are encouraged to create inclusive and flexible workplaces (PtC 10) and policymakers to make necessary changes in social and labour policies (PtC 9, 11). A research agenda highlights the necessity for stronger evidence aimed at personalising work-related support to the diverse needs of people with RMDs. CONCLUSION: Implementation of these EULAR PtC will improve healthy and sustainable work participation of people with RMDs.

Diagnosis for early stage knee osteoarthritis: probability stratification, internal and external validation; data from the CHECK and OAI cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To internally and externally validate our diagnostic criteria of early stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the CHECK and OAI cohorts. DESIGN: We applied two previously developed diagnostic models to all knees in CHECK and OAI cohorts to calculate probabilities of early stage knee OA at baseline. Knees were categorized into three groups based on probability: 'no OA' (probability ≤ 30%), 'uncertain' (probability between 30% and 70%) and 'early stage OA' (probability ≥ 70%). To validate the diagnosis, we obtained OA related outcome measures at 10-year follow-up in the CHECK cohort, and at 8-9-year follow-up in the OAI cohort. We compared outcome measures between 'no OA' and 'early stage OA' knees, and between 'no OA' and 'uncertain' knees using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: In CHECK (n = 1042 knees) both models showed 'early stage OA' knees presented with significant and clinically relevant higher WOMAC scores, higher Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) grade, and higher rates of joint space narrowing (JSN) progression after 10 years, compared to 'no OA' knees. In OAI (n = 2937 knees) both models showed 'early stage OA' knees presented with significant and clinically relevant higher WOMAC scores, higher KL grade, and higher rates of KL and JSN progression after 8-9 years, compared to 'no OA' knees. Smaller, but still significant differences between 'uncertain' and 'no OA' knees were observed in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These results support internal and external validity of the two sets of diagnostic criteria for early stage knee OA.

Efficacy of Tocilizumab Monotherapy Versus Tocilizumab and Methotrexate Combination Therapy in the Prevention of Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Analysis Using Individual Patient Data From Multiple Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of preventing radiographic progression (in its 3 components) of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy with those of TCZ and methotrexate (MTX) in combination therapy (TCZ + MTX), and to evaluate possible effect modifiers in this model. METHODS: Randomized trials that compared TCZ monotherapy to TCZ + MTX combination therapy for differences in radiographic progression were analyzed on an individual patient data level using mixed-effects models, and data were collected from 820 subjects with either early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or established RA. Outcomes were classified as the absence of radiographic progression after 2 years (i.e., preventing radiographic progression) as measured by total Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS), erosion score, and joint space narrowing (JSN) score. Effect modification by baseline joint damage, disease duration, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) was studied. RESULTS: Overall, TCZ + MTX combination therapy was more effective in preventing radiographic progression compared to TCZ monotherapy, which was measured by total SHS score. However, in patients with early RA who had more joint damage compared to those with less joint damage at baseline (relative risk [RR] 1.02 versus RR 0.91, respectively) or in patients with a lower DAS28 score compared to those with a higher DAS28 score (RR 1.04 versus RR 0.92, respectively) at baseline, this advantage disappeared. In patients with established RA, the advantage of TCZ + MTX versus TCZ alone in the prevention of radiographic progression disappeared with a longer disease duration at baseline (RR 1.04 versus 0.83). Results of erosion scores as an outcome were in line with these findings, though findings for JSN scores were less clear. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with TCZ + MTX is more effective in preventing radiographic progression compared to TCZ monotherapy, but the effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy may approximate the effectiveness of TCZ + MTX in patients with early RA who have more joint damage and/or a lower DAS28 at baseline and in patients with established RA who have longer disease duration.

Intravenous pegylated liposomal prednisolone outperforms intramuscular methylprednisolone in treating rheumatoid arthritis flares: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are potent anti-inflammatory drugs but their use is limited by systemic exposure leading to toxicity. Targeted GC delivery to sites of inflammation via encapsulation in long-circulating liposomes may improve the therapeutic index. We performed a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multi-center study in which intravenously (i.v.) administered pegylated liposomal prednisolone sodium phosphate (Nanocort) was compared to equipotent intramuscular (i.m.) methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol®; i.e. a current standards-of-care for treating flares in rheumatoid arthritis patients). We enrolled 172 patients with active arthritis who met all eligibility criteria, eventually resulting in 150 patients randomized in three groups: (1) Nanocort 75 mg i.v. infusion plus i.m. saline injection; (2) Nanocort 150 mg i.v. infusion plus i.m. saline injection; and (3) Depo-Medrol® 120 mg i.m. injection plus i.v. saline infusion. Dosing in each group occurred at baseline and on day 15 (week 2). Study visits occurred at week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12, to assess both efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint was the "European League Against Rheumatism" (EULAR) responder rate at week 1. Safety was determined by the occurrence of adverse events during treatment and 12 weeks of follow-up. Treatment with Nanocort was found to be superior to Depo-Medrol® in terms of EULAR response at week 1, with p-values of 0.007 (good response) and 0.018 (moderate response). Treatments were well tolerated with a comparable pattern of adverse events in the three treatment groups. However, the Nanocort groups had a higher incidence of hypersensitivity reactions during liposome infusion. Our results show that liposomal Nanocort is more effective than Depo-Medrol® in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis flares and has similar safety. This is the first clinical study in a large patient population showing that i.v. administered targeted drug delivery with a nanomedicine formulation improves the therapeutic index of glucocorticoids.

Diagnosis of early stage knee osteoarthritis based on early clinical course: data from the CHECK cohort.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is important in managing this disease, but such an early diagnostic tool is still lacking in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to develop diagnostic models for early stage knee OA based on the first 2-year clinical course after the patient's initial presentation in primary care and to identify whether these course factors had additive discriminative value over baseline factors. METHODS: We extracted eligible patients' clinical and radiographic data from the CHECK cohort and formed the first 2-year course factors according to the factors' changes over the 2 years. Clinical expert consensus-based diagnosis, which was made via evaluating patients' 5- to 10-year follow-up data, was used as the outcome factor. Four models were developed: model 1, included clinical course factors only; model 2, included clinical and radiographic course factors; model 3, clinical baseline factors + clinical course factors; and model 4, clinical and radiographic baseline factors + clinical and radiographic course factors. All the models were built by a generalized estimating equation with a backward selection method. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for assessing model discrimination. Delong's method compared AUCs. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-one patients with 1185 symptomatic knees were included in this study. Thirty-seven percent knees were diagnosed as OA at follow-up. Model 1 contained 6 clinical course factors; model 2: 6 clinical and 3 radiographic course factors; model 3: 6 baseline clinical factors combined with 5 clinical course factors; and model 4: 4 clinical and 1 radiographic baseline factors combined with 5 clinical and 3 radiographic course factors. Model discriminations are as follows: model 1, AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.74); model 2, 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77); model 3, 0.77 (95% CI 0.74-0.80); and model 4, 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.82). AUCs of model 3 and model 4 were slightly but significantly higher than corresponding baseline-factor models (model 3 0.77 vs 0.75, p = 0.031; model 4 0.80 vs 0.76, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Four diagnostic models were developed with "fair" to "good" discriminations. First 2-year course factors had additive discriminative value over baseline factors.

Barriers and potential solutions in the recruitment and retention of older patients in clinical trials-lessons learned from six large multicentre randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: older people remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence generated in younger populations cannot always be generalized to older patients. OBJECTIVE: to identify key barriers and to discuss solutions to specific issues affecting recruitment and retention of older participants in clinical trials based on experience gained from six current European randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on older people. METHODS: a multidisciplinary group of experts including representatives of the six RCTs held two networking conferences and compiled lists of potential barriers and solutions. Every item was subsequently allocated points by each study team according to how important it was perceived to be for their RCTs. RESULTS: the six RCTs enrolled 7,612 older patients. Key barriers to recruitment were impaired health status, comorbidities and diverse health beliefs including priorities within different cultural systems. All trials had to increase the number of recruitment sites. Other measures felt to be effective included the provision of extra time, communication training for the study staff and a re-design of patient information. Key barriers for retention included the presence of severe comorbidities and the occurrence of adverse events. Long study duration, frequent study visits and difficulties accessing the study site were also mentioned. Solutions felt to be effective included spending more time maintaining close contact with the participants, appropriate measures to show appreciation and reimbursement of travel arrangements. CONCLUSION: recruitment and retention of older patients in trials requires special recognition and a targeted approach. Our results provide scientifically-based practical recommendations for optimizing future studies in this population.

Diagnostic criteria for early hip osteoarthritis: first steps, based on the CHECK study.

OBJECTIVES: Although there is a general focus on early diagnosis and treatment of hip OA, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA. The current study aimed to take the first steps in developing diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA, using factors obtained through history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing at the first consultation in individuals presenting with hip pain, suspicious for hip OA, in primary care. METHODS: Data of the 543 individuals with 735 symptomatic hips at baseline who had any follow-up data available from the prospective CHECK cohort study were used. A group of 26 clinical experts [general practitioners (GPs), rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons] evaluated standardized clinical assessment forms of all subjects on the presence of clinically relevant hip OA 5-10 years after baseline. Using the expert-based diagnoses as reference standard, a backward selection method was used to create predictive models based on pre-defined baseline factors from history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing. RESULTS: Prevalence of clinically relevant hip OA during follow-up was 22%. Created models contained four to eight baseline factors (mainly WOMAC pain items, painful/restricted movements and radiographic features) and obtained area under the curve between 0.62 (0.002) and 0.71 (0.002). CONCLUSION: Based on clinical and radiographic features of hip OA obtained at first consultation at a GP for pain/stiffness of the hip, the prediction of clinically relevant hip OA within 5-10 years was 'poor' to 'fair'.

2019 EULAR points to consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology specialty training.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Striving for harmonisation of specialty training and excellence of care in rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) established a task force to develop points to consider (PtCs) for the assessment of competences during rheumatology specialty training. METHODS: A systematic literature review on the performance of methods for the assessment of competences in rheumatology specialty training was conducted. This was followed by focus groups in five selected countries to gather information on assessment practices and priorities. Combining the collected evidence with expert opinion, the PtCs were formulated by the multidisciplinary task force, including rheumatologists, medical educationalists, and people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The level of agreement (LoA) for each PtC was anonymously voted online. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and 10 PtCs were formulated. The overarching principles highlighted the importance of assessments being closely linked to the rheumatology training programme and protecting sufficient time and resources to ensure effective implementation. In the PtCs, two were related to overall assessment strategy (PtCs 1 and 5); three focused on formative assessment and portfolio (PtCs 2-4); three focused on the assessment of knowledge, skills or professionalism (PtCs 6-8); one focused on trainees at risk of failure (PtC 9); and one focused on training the trainers (PtC 10). The LoA (0-10) ranged from 8.75 to 9.9. CONCLUSION: These EULAR PtCs provide European guidance on assessment methods throughout rheumatology training programmes. These can be used to benchmark current practices and to develop future strategies, thereby fostering continuous improvement in rheumatology learning and, ultimately, in patient care.

Effect on Costs and Quality-adjusted Life-years of Treat-to-target Treatment Strategies Initiating Methotrexate, or Tocilizumab, or Their Combination in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of initiating tocilizumab (TCZ) ± methotrexate (MTX) versus initiating MTX as treat-to-target treatment strategies over 5 years in early disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data on resource use were collected with questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and yearly thereafter, and were converted to costs using Dutch reference prices. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using the EQ5D5L, with utility based on Dutch tariff or estimated by the Health Assessment Questionnaire. To account for missing cost data and QALY data and for sample uncertainty, first bootstraps (10,000 samples) were obtained. Second, single imputation using chained equations nested within these bootstrap samples was performed. An economic evaluation was performed for TCZ + MTX and TCZ, compared to MTX, as initial treatment in a treat-to-target strategy from a healthcare and societal perspective over 5 years. Several sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean differences in QALY were small and not significant (TCZ + MTX vs MTX: 0.06, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.13; TCZ vs. MTX: -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.11). Limited savings in indirect nonhealthcare costs and productivity loss costs (for TCZ only) were observed, but these did not compensate for the higher medication costs. Sensitivity analyses did not materially change these findings, although lower-priced TCZ, or reserving TCZ as initial therapy for prognostically unfavorable RA patients, improved cost effectiveness considerably but did not individually lead to a strategy being cost effective. CONCLUSION: Based on our analyses, early initiation of TCZ + MTX is not cost effective compared to MTX initiation in a step-up treat-to-target treatment strategy over 5 years in early RA patients.

2020 EULAR points to consider for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to treatment in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases for use in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. METHODS: An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients' needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

Comprehensive exploratory autoantibody profiling in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate or tocilizumab.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify immunoglobin G autoantibodies predictive of early treatment response to methotrexate, the recommended first-line therapy for patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, and to the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor biologic tocilizumab, initiated as the first disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In baseline sera of a subset of patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis in the U-Act-Early study, selected based on specific responder/non-responder criteria using the Disease Activity Score assessing 28 joints (DAS28) within the first 20 weeks, we measured immunoglobin G antibody reactivity against 463 protein antigens and performed supervised cluster analysis to identify predictive autoantibodies for treatment response. The analysis subset comprised 56 patients in the methotrexate arm (22 responders, 34 non-responders) and 50 patients in the tocilizumab arm (34 responders, 16 non-responders). For comparison, these analyses were also performed in 50 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. RESULTS: Increased reactivity in responders versus non-responders was found in the methotrexate arm against two antigens-DOT1-like histone lysine methyltransferase (p = 0.009) and tropomyosin (p = 0.003)-and in the tocilizumab arm against one antigen-neuro-oncological ventral antigen 2 (p = 0.039). Decreased reactivity was detected against two antigens in the methotrexate arm-G1 to S phase transition 2 (p = 0.023) and the zinc finger protein ZPR1 (p = 0.021). Reactivity against the identified antigens was not statistically significant in either treatment arm for patients with rheumatoid factor-positive versus-negative or anti-cyclic citrullinated test-positive versus test-negative rheumatoid arthritis (p ≥ 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive profiling of baseline sera revealed several novel immunoglobin G autoantibodies associated with early treatment response to methotrexate and to tocilizumab in disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis. These findings could eventually yield clinically relevant predictive markers, if corroborated in different patient cohorts, and may facilitate future benefit in personalised healthcare.

Prevention, screening, assessing and managing of non-adherent behaviour in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: systematic reviews informing the 2020 EULAR points to consider.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse how non-adherence to prescribed treatments might be prevented, screened, assessed and managed in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews (SR) was performed in four bibliographic databases. Research questions focused on: (1) effective interventions or strategies, (2) associated factors, (3) impact of shared decision making and effective communication, (4) practical things to prevent non-adherence, (5) effect of non-adherence on outcome, (6) screening and assessment tools and (7) responsible healthcare providers. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. The qualitative synthesis focused on results and on the level of evidence attained from the studies included in the reviews. RESULTS: After reviewing 9908 titles, the overview included 38 SR on medication, 29 on non-pharmacological interventions and 28 on assessment. Content and quality of the included SR was very heterogeneous. The number of factors that may influence adherence exceed 700. Among 53 intervention studies, 54.7% showed a small statistically significant effect on adherence, and all three multicomponent interventions, including different modes of patient education and delivered by a variety of healthcare providers, showed a positive result in adherence to medication. No single assessment provided a comprehensive measure of adherence to either medication or exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the complexity of non-adherence, its changing pattern and dependence on multi-level factors, the need to involve all stakeholders in all steps, the absence of a gold standard for screening and the requirement of multi-component interventions to manage it.