Effect of combined treatment with prednisone and methotrexate versus prednisone alone over laboratory parameters in giant cell arteritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of combined treatment with prednisone and methotrexate (MTX) versus prednisone alone over laboratory parameters in giant cell arteritis (GCA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial about usefulness of treatment with prednisone and MTX versus prednisone and placebo in GCA (Ann Intern Med 2001;134:106-114). As a part of follow-up of patients (n=42), we performed laboratory analysis in 20 time points during the two-year period of follow-up. To analyze differences, we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), hemoglobin, and platelets, and compared the results in both groups adjusting by time of follow-up, existence of relapses and dose of prednisone. RESULTS: A total of 724 laboratory measurements were done. Median value of ESR was 33 [18-56] in patients with placebo and 26 [15-44] in patients with MTX (P=0.0002). No significant differences were observed in ESR during relapses. The mean ESR value followed a parallel course in both groups, but was lower in the group with MTX than in the group with placebo in 18 of 20 time points of follow-up. The AUC of ESR by time of follow-up was 28,461.7±12,326 in the group with placebo and 19,598.4±8,117 in the group with MTX (mean difference 8,863, 95% CI 1.542-16.184; P=0.019). The course of other laboratory parameters paralleled, without statistical significance, those observed for ESR. CONCLUSIONS: These data, along with clinical data, suggest that MTX might play a role as a disease-modifying agent in the treatment of GCA.

Effect of combined treatment with prednisone and methotrexate versus prednisone alone over laboratory parameters in giant cell arteritis / Efecto del tratamiento combinado con prednisona y metotrexato versus prednisona sola sobre los parámetros de laboratorio en arteritis de células gigantes

Objective: To compare the effect of combined treatment with prednisone and methotrexate (MTX) versus prednisone alone over laboratory parameters in giant cell arteritis (GCA). Patients and methods: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial about usefulness of treatment with prednisone and MTX versus prednisone and placebo in GCA (Ann Intern Med 2001;134:106–114). As a part of follow-up of patients (n=42), we performed laboratory analysis in 20 time points during the two-year period of follow-up. To analyze differences, we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), hemoglobin, and platelets, and compared the results in both groups adjusting by time of follow-up, existence of relapses and dose of prednisone. Results: A total of 724 laboratory measurements were done. Median value of ESR was 33 [18–56] in patients with placebo and 26 [15–44] in patients with MTX (P=0.0002). No significant differences were observed in ESR during relapses. The mean ESR value followed a parallel course in both groups, but was lower in the group with MTX than in the group with placebo in 18 of 20 time points of follow-up. The AUC of ESR by time of follow-up was 28,461.7±12,326 in the group with placebo and 19,598.4±8,117 in the group with MTX (mean difference 8,863, 95% CI 1.542–16.184; P=0.019). The course of other laboratory parameters paralleled, without statistical significance, those observed for ESR. Conclusions: These data, along with clinical data, suggest that MTX might play a role as a disease-modifying agent in the treatment of GCA.(AU)

Objetivo: Comparar el efecto del tratamiento combinado con prednisona y metotrexato (MTX) versus prednisona sola sobre parámetros de laboratorio en arteritis de células gigantes (ACG). Pacientes y métodos: Realizamos un ensayo clínico aleatorizado, doble ciego, controlado con placebo sobre la utilidad del tratamiento con prednisona y MTX frente a prednisona y placebo en la ACG (Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:106-114). Como parte del seguimiento de los pacientes (n=42), realizamos análisis de laboratorio en 20 puntos temporales durante el período de seguimiento de 2 años. Para analizar diferencias calculamos el área bajo la curva (AUC) de VSG, hemoglobina y plaquetas, y comparamos los resultados en ambos grupos ajustando por tiempo de seguimiento, existencia de recaídas y dosis de prednisona. Resultados: Se realizaron un total de 724 mediciones de laboratorio. El valor medio de la VSG fue de 33 (18-56) en pacientes con placebo y de 26 (15-44) en pacientes con MTX (p=0,0002). No se observaron diferencias significativas en la VSG durante las recaídas. El valor medio de la VSG siguió un curso paralelo en ambos grupos, pero fue menor en el grupo con MTX que en el grupo con placebo en 18 de 20 puntos temporales de seguimiento. El AUC de la VSG por tiempo de seguimiento fue de 28.461,7±12.326 en el grupo con placebo y de 19.598,4±8.117 en el grupo con MTX (diferencia de medias 8.863; IC 95%: 1.542-16.184; p=0,019). La evolución de los demás parámetros de laboratorio fue paralela, sin significación estadística, a la observada para la VSG. Conclusiones: Estos datos, junto con los datos clínicos, sugieren que el MTX podría desempeñar un papel como agente modificador de la enfermedad en el tratamiento de la ACG.(AU)

Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients' association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. RESULTS: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.

Desarrollo y viabilidad de cuatro checklists para la evaluación de la comorbilidad en pacientes con artritis reumatoide, espondiloartritis axial y artritis psoriásica: Proyecto GECOAI / Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project

Objetivo: Desarrollar y analizar la viabilidad en la práctica diaria de cuatro checklists relacionados con la comorbilidad, comunes para pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR), espondiloartritis axial (EspAax) y artritis psoriásica (APs). Métodos: Se estableció un grupo multidisciplinar de expertos en comorbilidad. Se revisaron los proyectos GECOAR, GECOAX y GECOAP, y se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en Medline sobre comorbilidad en AR, EspAax y APs, para seleccionar las comorbilidades más relevantes y comunes a las tres enfermedades. Con estos resultados y los obtenidos de un grupo focal de pacientes, en una reunión de grupo nominal, los expertos generaron unos checklists preliminares. Estos listados preliminares se modificaron, tras una evaluación externa por una asociación de pacientes y otra de profesionales de la salud relacionados con la reumatología, para generar los checklists definitivos. Finalmente, se realizó un estudio transversal, en el que ocho profesionales de la salud evaluaron tres checklists en cinco pacientes con AR, cinco con EspAax y cinco con APs. Resultados: Se diseñaron cuatro checklists de comorbilidad, tres para profesionales de la salud (uno sobre evaluación de la comorbilidad presente, otro sobre prevención/promoción de la salud y un último con los criterios de derivación a otros profesionales), y otro para pacientes. El estudio de viabilidad mostró que son sencillos, claros y útiles para su uso en la práctica clínica habitual. Conclusiones: El uso de checklists específicos y comunes para pacientes con AR, EspAax y APs es factible y puede contribuir favorablemente en su pronóstico así como en la práctica clínica habitual.(AU)

Objective: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients’ association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. Results: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. Conclusions: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.(AU)

Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project. / Desarrollo y viabilidad de cuatro checklists para la evaluación de la comorbilidad en pacientes con artritis reumatoide, espondiloartritis axial y artritis psoriásica: Proyecto GECOAI.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients' association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. RESULTS: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.