2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticized for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. METHODS: A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in 3 phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease--this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis." RESULTS: In the new criteria set, classification as "definite RA" is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0-5), serologic abnormality (score range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (score range 0-1), and symptom duration (2 levels; range 0-1). CONCLUSION: This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis."

The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism have developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of Phase 2 of the development process was to achieve expert consensus on the clinical and laboratory variables that should contribute to the final criteria set. METHODS: Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of "developing RA," complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach. CONCLUSION: The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set.

2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. METHODS: A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in three phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease--this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct 'RA'. RESULTS: In the new criteria set, classification as 'definite RA' is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least one joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis better explaining the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in four domains: number and site of involved joints (range 0-5), serological abnormality (range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (range 0-1) and symptom duration (two levels; range 0-1). CONCLUSION: This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimise the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct 'RA'.

The United States rheumatology workforce: supply and demand, 2005-2025.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and apply a model that allows prediction of current and future supply and demand for rheumatology services in the US. METHODS: A supply model was developed using the age and sex distribution of current physicians, retirement and mortality rates, the number of fellowship slots and fill rates, and practice patterns of rheumatologists. A Markov projection model was used to project needs in 5-year increments from 2005 to 2025. RESULTS: The number of rheumatologists for adult patients in the US in 2005 is 4,946. Male and female rheumatologists are equally distributed up to age 44; above age 44, men predominate. The percent of women in adult rheumatology is projected to increase from 30.2% in 2005 to 43.6% in 2025. The mean number of visits per rheumatologist per year is 3,758 for male rheumatologists and 2,800 for female rheumatologists. Assuming rheumatology supply and demand are in equilibrium in 2005, the demand for rheumatologists in 2025 is projected to exceed supply by 2,576 adult and 33 pediatric rheumatologists. The primary factors in the excess demand are an aging population which will increase the number of people with rheumatic disorders, growth in the Gross Domestic Product, and flat rheumatology supply due to fixed numbers entering the workforce and to retirements. The productivity of younger rheumatologists and women, who will make up a greater percentage of the future workforce, may also have important effects on supply. Unknown effects that could influence these projections include technology advances, more efficient practice methods, changes in insurance reimbursements, and shifting lifestyles. Current data suggest that the pediatric rheumatology workforce is experiencing a substantial excess of demand versus supply. CONCLUSION: Based on assessment of supply and demand under current scenarios, the demand for rheumatologists is expected to exceed supply in the coming decades. Strategies for the profession to adapt to this changing health care landscape include increasing the number of fellows each year, utilizing physician assistants and nurse practitioners in greater numbers, and improving practice efficiency.