Rheumatoid Arthritis: Bombardier C

Aletaha D, Landewe R, Karonitsch T, Bathon J, Boers M, Bombardier C, Bombardieri S, Choi H, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, Gomez-Reino J, Keystone E, Koch G, Kvien TK, Martin-Mola E, Matucci-Cerinic M, Michaud K, O'Dell J, Paulus H, Pincus T, Richards P, Simon L, Siegel J, Smolen JS, Sokka T, Strand V, Tugwell P, van der Heijde D, van Riel P, Vlad S, van Vollenhoven R, Ward M, Weinblatt M, Wells G, White B, Wolfe F, Zhang B, Zink A, Felson D, Anonymous00358, Anonymous00359. · Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18821648 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: The project followed the EULAR standardized operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: 1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); 2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and 3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007). RESULTS: Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature, the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: 1) disease activity response and disease activity states; 2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; 3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); 4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; 5) time to onset of the primary outcome; 6) sustainability of the primary outcome; 7) fatigue. CONCLUSION: These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonize the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.

Katchamart W, Trudeau J, Phumethum V, Bombardier C. · Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #19054823 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy compared with MTX combination with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. METHOD: A systematic review of randomised trials comparing MTX alone and in combination with other non-biological DMARDs was carried out. Trials were identified in Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR meeting abstracts. Primary outcomes were withdrawals for adverse events or lack of efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 19 trials (2025 patients) from 6938 citations were grouped by the type of patients randomised. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy; withdrawals for lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.16; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93). Trials in MTX or non-MTX DMARD inadequate responder patients also showed no difference in withdrawal rates between the MTX combo versus mono groups (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51 and RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.35), but in one study the specific combination of MTX with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine showed a better efficacy/toxicity ratio than MTX alone with RR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.65). Adding leflunomide to MTX non-responders improved efficacy but increased the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and liver toxicity. Withdrawals for toxicity were most significant with ciclosporin and azathioprine combinations. CONCLUSION: In DMARD naive patients the balance of efficacy/toxicity favours MTX monotherapy. In DMARD inadequate responders the evidence is inconclusive. Trials are needed that compare currently used MTX doses and combination therapies.

Li LC, Badley EM, MacKay C, Mosher D, Jamal SW, Jones A, Bombardier C. · University of British Columbia and Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, 895 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18668611 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Michaud K, Bombardier C, Emery P. · Section of Rheumatology and Immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-6270, USA. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17977487 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive, autoimmune disease that, in addition to causing joint damage, is associated with pain, fatigue, disability and functional loss, which can substantially decrease a patient's quality of life (QoL). Along with improvements in signs and symptoms, QoL benefits have become increasingly important in optimizing treatment outcomes in RA. Measurements of QoL have previously been under-used in all areas of medicine and only recently have clinical trials included them as a measure of treatment effectiveness. The existence of a positive relationship between improvements in signs and symptoms and concomitant improvements in QoL provides additional evidence that QoL measures are useful benchmarks for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment for RA. Furthermore, since these outcome measures evaluate the real-life, patient-centered benefits of RA therapies, they are likely to become increasingly central to the assessment of disease impact in clinical trials and practice, and to both drug approval and reimbursement decisions.This article reviews the impact of abatacept, a selective co-stimulation modulator, on the QoL of patients with active RA across a number of pivotal clinical trials. Firstly, an overview of the key QoL measurements used in abatacept clinical trials is provided, including those such as the Short Form-36, Health Assessment Questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale for pain, sleep and fatigue. We then present QoL data obtained in a wide range of patients with RA, including those with an inadequate response to either methotrexate or anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy, who have been treated with abatacept. Analysis of these data demonstrates that abatacept therapy has the potential to improve QoL across a range of patients with RA.

Simon LS, Smolen JS, Abramson SB, Appel G, Bombardier C, Brater DC, Breedveld FC, Brune K, Burmester GR, Crofford LJ, Dougados M, DuBois RN, Fitzgerald GA, Frishman W, García Rodríguez LA, Hochberg MC, Kalden JR, Laine L, Langman MJ, Prescott SM, van de Putte LB, Whelton A, White WB, Willaims GH. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12136912 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Clark P, Tugwell P, Bennet K, Bombardier C, Shea B, Wells G, Suarez-Almazor ME. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796386 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term benefit and risk of side-effects of injectable gold for rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing injectable gold against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality of the RCTs was asessed by two reviewers (MS, BS) (kappa=1.0). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted by two reviewers from the publications for the 6 month endpoint. Sufficient data was obtained to conduct a pooled analysis of the number of swollen joints, physician global assessment, patient global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Results were analyzed as standardized weighted mean differences for swollen joints and global assessments and weighted mean differences for ESR. Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. Heterogeneity was estimated using a chi-square test. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials and 415 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for injectable gold when compared to placebo. The standardized weighted difference (effect size) between gold and placebo for the number of swollen joints was -0.5, translating into a percentage change of 30% in favour of gold adjusted for placebo. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR and patient and physician assessments. Twenty two percent of the treated patients withdrew from toxicity compared to 4% of controls (OR=3.9 - 95%Cl: 2.1 - 7.2). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although its use can be limited by the incidence of serious toxicity, injectable gold has an important clinically and statistically significant benefit in the short term treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Laine L, Connors LG, Reicin A, Hawkey CJ, Burgos-Vargas R, Schnitzer TJ, Yu Q, Bombardier C. · University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles 90033, USA. · Gastroenterology. · Pubmed #12557133 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND & AIMS: Epidemiologic studies suggest nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for lower gastrointestinal (GI) clinical events, but data from prospective trials are lacking. Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective inhibitors decrease upper GI clinical events but the effect on lower GI events has not been determined. We performed a post hoc analysis of serious lower GI clinical events with a nonselective NSAID and a COX-2-selective agent in a prospective, double-blind, randomized GI outcomes trial. METHODS: A total of 8076 rheumatoid arthritis patients 50 years or older (or 40 years or older on corticosteroid therapy) expected to require NSAIDs for 1 year or greater were randomly assigned to naproxen 500 mg twice daily or rofecoxib 50 mg daily. The rate of serious lower GI clinical events, defined as bleeding with a 2 g/dL drop in hemoglobin or hospitalization, or hospitalization for perforation, obstruction, ulceration, or diverticulitis, was determined. RESULTS: The rate of serious lower GI events per 100 patient-years was 0.41 for rofecoxib and 0.89 for naproxen (relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.93; P = 0.032). Serious lower GI events accounted for 39.4% of all serious GI events (complicated upper GI event or lower GI event) among patients taking naproxen and 42.7% among those taking rofecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Serious lower GI events occurred at a rate of 0.9% per year in rheumatoid arthritis patients taking the nonselective NSAID naproxen, accounting for nearly 40% of the serious GI events that developed in these patients. Serious lower GI events were 54% lower with the use of the selective COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib.

Laine L, Bombardier C, Hawkey CJ, Davis B, Shapiro D, Brett C, Reicin A. · University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA. · Gastroenterology. · Pubmed #12360461 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND & AIMS: Epidemiologic data indicate that the risk of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) clinical events varies based on patients' clinical characteristics. The authors determined risk factors for NSAID-related clinical upper GI events and the event rates, absolute risk reductions, and numbers needed to treat for individual risk factors for a nonselective NSAID and a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor in a double-blind outcomes trial. METHODS: Eight thousand seventy-six rheumatoid arthritis patients aged >or=50 years (or >or=40 on corticosteroid therapy) were randomly assigned to rofecoxib 50 mg daily or naproxen 500 mg twice daily for a median of 9 months. The development of clinical upper GI events (bleeding, perforation, obstruction, and symptomatic ulcer identified on clinically indicated work-up) was assessed. RESULTS: Significant risk factors included prior upper GI events, age >or=65, and severe rheumatoid arthritis (RR, 2.3-3.9). Patients administered naproxen who had prior upper GI complications or who were aged >or=75 years had 18.84 or 14.46 events per 100 patient-years, and the risk of events remained constant over time. The reduction in events with rofecoxib was similar in high- and low-risk subgroups (RR, 0.31-0.68). The number needed to treat with rofecoxib instead of naproxen to avert 1 GI event was 10-12 in highest risk patients (prior event, age >or=75 years, or severe rheumatoid arthritis), 17-33 in patients with other risk factors, and 42-106 in low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: NSAID-related GI events increase dramatically with risk factors such as prior events or older age. Ten to twelve high-risk patients need to be treated with a protective strategy such as the selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, rofecoxib, to avert a clinical GI event.

Maetzel A, Strand V, Tugwell P, Wells G, Bombardier C. · Arthritis and Immune Disorder Research Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Pharmacoeconomics. · Pubmed #11817993 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare disease-related medical care and productivity costs, and utilities, in 482 patients with rheumatoid arthritis randomised to receive leflunomide, methotrexate or placebo during a 12-month period. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a 1-year randomised double-blind trial set in North America. PERSPECTIVE: Societal and the Ontario Ministry of Health. METHODS: Information on healthcare resources, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of working time and time spent on chores, related to the disease or the medication, were collected at 4-week intervals and at study discontinuation. Rating scale and standard gamble (SG) utilities (0 = worse; 100 = best) were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months or study exit. Medical care costs in Canadian dollars (Can dollars) were calculated using Ontario reimbursement schedules. US patients' expenses were converted to Can dollars using 1995 purchasing power parity. Lost wages were calculated by age and gender according to 1995 Canadian wage data. All costs were adjusted to 1999 Can dollars and arithmetic mean costs were compared using the nonparametric bootstrap. Analysis of covariance was performed to compare utilities between groups. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) rating scale values and SG utilities, respectively, for leflunomide, methotrexate and placebo were 67.7 (18.0), 64.8 (18.1) and 57.5 (9.2), and 80.2 (22.1), 83.2 (18.0) and 77.0 (20.5). Both leflunomide and methotrexate had higher rating scale values (p < 0.05) compared with placebo; SG utilities were significantly different between methotrexate and placebo (p < 0.05). Annualised total rheumatoid arthritisb- or drug-related costs for leflunomide, methotrexate and placebo, respectively, were Can dollars 1761, Can dollars 1280 and Can dollars 1324, and medical care costs were Can dollars 753, Can dollars 620 and Can dollars 167 (all costs exclude drug acquisition and monitoring costs). Annual drug acquisition/ routine monitoring costs were estimated, respectively, at Can dollars 3853/Can dollars 483 for leflunomide and Can dollars 258/Can dollars 599 for methotrexate. Differences between overall costs (excluding drug acquisition and monitoring costs) and medical care costs were not statistically significant. The costs of treating patients with leflunomide were significantly higher than for methotrexate when drug acquisition and monitoring costs were included (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in utilities could be found between leflunomide or methotrexate. When drug monitoring and acquisition costs are excluded, leflunomide has an otherwise similar economic profile compared with methotrexate, the current gold standard. The acquisition cost of leflunomide is a driving factor in increasing the costs of therapy. These higher costs need to be assessed relative to the therapeutic value of leflunomide.

Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, Day R, Ferraz MB, Hawkey CJ, Hochberg MC, Kvien TK, Schnitzer TJ, Anonymous00004. · Institute for Work and Health, Mount Sinai Hospital, and the University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #11087881 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Each year, clinical upper gastrointestinal events occur in 2 to 4 percent of patients who are taking nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We assessed whether rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, would be associated with a lower incidence of clinically important upper gastrointestinal events than is the nonselective NSAID naproxen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 8076 patients who were at least 50 years of age (or at least 40 years of age and receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy) and who had rheumatoid arthritis to receive either 50 mg of rofecoxib daily or 500 mg of naproxen twice daily. The primary end point was confirmed clinical upper gastrointestinal events (gastroduodenal perforation or obstruction, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers). RESULTS: Rofecoxib and naproxen had similar efficacy against rheumatoid arthritis. During a median follow-up of 9.0 months, 2.1 confirmed gastrointestinal events per 100 patient-years occurred with rofecoxib, as compared with 4.5 per 100 patient-years with naproxen (relative risk, 0.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6; P<0.001). The respective rates of complicated confirmed events (perforation, obstruction, and severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding) were 0.6 per 100 patient-years and 1.4 per 100 patient-years (relative risk, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.8; P=0.005). The incidence of myocardial infarction was lower among patients in the naproxen group than among those in the rofecoxib group (0.1 percent vs. 0.4 percent; relative risk, 0.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.7); the overall mortality rate and the rate of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, treatment with rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, is associated with significantly fewer clinically important upper gastrointestinal events than treatment with naproxen, a nonselective inhibitor.

Tsakonas E, Fitzgerald AA, Fitzcharles MA, Cividino A, Thorne JC, M'Seffar A, Joseph L, Bombardier C, Esdaile JM. · Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10743799 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the longterm effect of delaying therapy with second-line agents in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: One hundred nineteen patients who participated in a 9 month placebo controlled randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) were followed prospectively for an additional 3 years. Those randomized to HCQ are referred to as the early treatment group and those randomized to placebo as the delayed treatment group. Participants were assessed annually for pain [Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS) and Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], physical disability (AIMS and HAQ), and the RA global well being scale (AIMS). Conversion of results into standard deviation (SD) units permitted defining a substantial difference as per Felson as > 0.30 SD units and a clinically indistinguishable difference as < or = 0.06 SD units. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients (97%) participated and complete data were available on 104 (87%). Compared to the early treatment group, the delayed group remained worse for both the pain and the physical disability outcomes over the additional 3 year followup. The difference in the RA global well being score became clinically indistinguishable for the early and delayed groups only after the 2 year post-trial assessment. The between-group differences were not explained by post-trial therapy with corticosteroids, other second-line agents, or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and analgesic preparations. CONCLUSION: These findings show that a delay in instituting therapy with second-line agents, even a 9 month delay in instituting a moderately powerful second-line agent such as HCQ, has significant effects on longterm patient outcome, and provides strong evidence in support of early therapy in RA.

Tugwell P, Wells G, Strand V, Maetzel A, Bombardier C, Crawford B, Dorrier C, Thompson A. · Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital, Ontario, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #10728742 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine correlations between clinical improvement as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responder analysis and clinical improvement as determined by 4 function and/or health-related quality of life measures, and to estimate the sensitivity and relative efficiency of these measures compared with changes in the tender joint count in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A 52-week, multicenter, double-blind controlled trial was conducted to compare treatment with leflunomide (n = 182), methotrexate (n = 180), or placebo (n = 118) in patients with active RA. ACR response rates and improvement in scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Problem Elicitation Technique (PET), and Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36) were compared in 438 of the patients. RESULTS: In comparing leflunomide with placebo, the patient global assessment, HAQ disability index, and SF-36 bodily pain scale were most responsive to treatment group differences. The modified HAQ (M-HAQ), PET Top 5, SF-36 physical component score, physician global assessment, pain intensity scale, and SF-36 physical functioning scale were more responsive to treatment group differences than was the tender joint count. In comparing methotrexate with placebo, the patient and physician global assessments were most responsive. These 2 measures, as well as the pain intensity scale and the C-reactive protein level, were more responsive to treatment group differences than was the tender joint count, while the SF-36 mental health component score was least responsive. A close correlation between changes in the M-HAQ and HAQ scores indicated that the M-HAQ was similarly responsive to change over time. Improvements in the PET, SF-36 physical component score, bodily pain, and physical functioning scales correlated with the ACR responder status. CONCLUSION: Both disease-specific and generic measures of function and health-related quality of life detect improvements in RA patients. Using both types of measures for evaluating therapies will identify discernible changes that are important to patients, and will facilitate comparisons across different disease states.

Strand V, Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Maetzel A, Crawford B, Dorrier C, Thompson A, Wells G. · University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #10513801 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of leflunomide or methotrexate compared with placebo in improving function and health-related quality of life in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to examine correlations between response status (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology [ACR] response criteria) and improvement in these measures. METHODS: This 52-week, multicenter, doubleblind, controlled trial compared responses to the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ), Problem Elicitation Technique (PET), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36), and questions regarding work productivity among 3 treatment groups (leflunomide, methotrexate, and placebo). Improvement in the PET top 5 and SF-36 scales and component scores were compared with ACR response rates. RESULTS: Clinically meaningful and statistically significant (P<0.0001) improvement in measures of function and heath-related quality of life (MHAQ scores, all scales and disability index of the HAQ, weighted top 5 score of the PET, 5 of 8 scales and physical component score of the SF-36, and work productivity) was seen during treatment with leflunomide in comparison with placebo. Methotrexate administration resulted in significant improvements (P<0.05) in comparison with placebo in the MHAQ scores, HAQ disability index, weighted top 5 score of the PET, physical component score of the SF-36, and bodily pain scale. Compared with methotrexate, leflunomide administration resulted in significantly (P<0.01) more improvement in the MHAQ scores, 5 of 8 scales and disability index of the HAQ, weighted top 5 score of the PET, and 2 of 8 scales and physical component score of the SF-36. Improvements in the PET score, SF-36 physical component score, and work productivity correlated with the ACR responder rates of > or =20% and > or =50% improvement. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements in function and health-related quality of life occurred in patients with RA during treatment with leflunomide or methotrexate. These findings were clinically meaningful and correlated with the ACR response status.

Visser K, Katchamart W, Loza E, Martinez-Lopez JA, Salliot C, Trudeau J, Bombardier C, Carmona L, van der Heijde D, Bijlsma JW, Boumpas DT, Canhao H, Edwards CJ, Hamuryudan V, Kvien TK, Leeb BF, Martín-Mola EM, Mielants H, Müller-Ladner U, Murphy G, Østergaard M, Pereira IA, Ramos-Remus C, Valentini G, Zochling J, Dougados M. · Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden, The Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #19033291 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice in rheumatic disorders. METHODS: 751 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2007-8 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and Delphi votes. Ten clinical questions concerning the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders were formulated. A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and 2005-7 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meeting abstracts was conducted. Selected articles were systematically reviewed and the evidence was appraised according to the Oxford levels of evidence. Each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 16 979 references was identified, of which 304 articles were included in the systematic reviews. Ten multinational key recommendations on the use of methotrexate were formulated. Nine recommendations were specific for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including the work-up before initiating methotrexate, optimal dosage and route, use of folic acid, monitoring, management of hepatotoxicity, long-term safety, mono versus combination therapy and management in the perioperative period and before/during pregnancy. One recommendation concerned methotrexate as a steroid-sparing agent in other rheumatic diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Ten recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice focussed on RA were developed, which are evidence based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, enhancing their validity and practical use.

Aletaha D, Landewe R, Karonitsch T, Bathon J, Boers M, Bombardier C, Bombardieri S, Choi H, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, Gomez-Reino J, Keystone E, Koch G, Kvien TK, Martin-Mola E, Matucci-Cerinic M, Michaud K, O'Dell J, Paulus H, Pincus T, Richards P, Simon L, Siegel J, Smolen JS, Sokka T, Strand V, Tugwell P, van der Heijde D, van Riel P, Vlad S, van Vollenhoven R, Ward M, Weinblatt M, Wells G, White B, Wolfe F, Zhang B, Zink A, Felson D. · Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18791055 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: The project followed the EULAR standardised operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: (1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); (2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and (3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007). RESULTS: Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: (1) disease activity response and disease activity states; (2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; (3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); (4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; (5) time to onset of the primary outcome; (6) sustainability of the primary outcome; (7) fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonise the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.

Beresniak A, Russell AS, Haraoui B, Bessette L, Bombardier C, Duru G. · LIRAES, University Paris-Descartes, Paris, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17937471 No free full text.

Abstract: Utility assessment and cost-utility analyses such as costs/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) are frequently presented to demonstrate the value of new treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, utility indicators require various methods that introduce significant methodological challenges, which directly influence the results and ensuing reimbursement decisions. Our objective was to review and discuss these challenges and the validity of frequently used utility assessment techniques in the context of RA. Coding the intensity of preferences or variations in patient satisfaction in order to assess utility implies extreme mathematical assumptions about a patient's rationality regarding his/her preferences towards different given health states. The construction and assumptions of commonly used "direct approaches" (standard gamble, time tradeoff, visual analog scale) and indirect approaches (EQ5D, HUI, SF6D) are presented. Other approaches such as transformation in utility of data from clinical (Health Assessment Questionnaire) or quality of life instruments ("mapping technique") are analyzed as they appear to generate uncertainty and a wide variation in estimated utility values in the context of RA. Utility assessment and cost-utility analyses in RA, which form the basis of the QALY, are frequently published and often requested by health technology assessment agencies to assist -reimbursement decisions. However, when interpreting the results, the medical community must take into consideration the limitations and significant uncertainty of these approaches.In light of these findings, real cost-effectiveness analyses based on observed clinical outcomes appear to be more robust and reliable to assist decision-making, particularly in the context of RA.

Lee HS, Irigoyen P, Kern M, Lee A, Batliwalla F, Khalili H, Wolfe F, Lum RF, Massarotti E, Weisman M, Bombardier C, Karlson EW, Criswell LA, Vlietinck R, Gregersen PK. · Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, New York 11030, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #17530703 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Recently, Swedish members of the Epidemiological Investigation of Rheumatoid Arthritis (EIRA) provided evidence that smoking may trigger RA-specific immune reactions to citrullinated protein in carriers of HLA-DR shared epitope alleles. In an effort to confirm this interaction between smoking and shared epitope alleles, we performed a case-only analysis of 3 North American RA cohorts. METHODS: A total of 2,476 white patients with RA were studied, 1,105 from the North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium (NARAC) family collection, 753 from the National Inception Cohort of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients (Inception Cohort), and 618 from the Study of New Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis (SONORA). All patients were HLA-DRB1 typed, and tested for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) and rheumatoid factor. Information about smoking history was obtained by questionnaire. RESULTS: A significant association was found between smoking and the presence of anti-CCP in the NARAC and the Inception Cohort, but not in the SONORA. The shared epitope alleles consistently correlated with anti-CCP in all 3 populations. Using multiple logistic regression analyses, shared epitope alleles were still the most significant risk factor for anti-CCP positivity. Weak evidence of gene-environment interaction between smoking and shared epitope alleles for anti-CCP formation was found only in the NARAC. CONCLUSION: Unlike the EIRA data, we could not confirm a major gene-environment interaction for anti-CCP formation between shared epitope alleles and smoking in 3 North American RA cohorts. Our data indicate a need for further studies to address the full range of environmental factors other than smoking that may be associated with citrullination and RA.

Cannon CP, Curtis SP, FitzGerald GA, Krum H, Kaur A, Bolognese JA, Reicin AS, Bombardier C, Weinblatt ME, van der Heijde D, Erdmann E, Laine L, Anonymous00100. · Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. · Lancet. · Pubmed #17113426 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in placebo-controlled trials, but no clinical trial has been reported with the primary aim of assessing relative cardiovascular risk of these drugs compared with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The MEDAL programme was designed to provide a precise estimate of thrombotic cardiovascular events with the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib versus the traditional NSAID diclofenac. METHODS: We designed a prespecified pooled analysis of data from three trials in which patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to etoricoxib (60 mg or 90 mg daily) or diclofenac (150 mg daily). The primary hypothesis stated that etoricoxib is not inferior to diclofenac, defined as an upper boundary of less than 1.30 for the 95% CI of the hazard ratio for thrombotic cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis. Intention-to-treat analyses were also done to assess consistency of results. These trials are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the numbers NCT00092703, NCT00092742, and NCT00250445. FINDINGS: 34 701 patients (24 913 with osteoarthritis and 9 787 with rheumatoid arthritis) were enrolled. Average treatment duration was 18 months (SD 11.8). 320 patients in the etoricoxib group and 323 in the diclofenac group had thrombotic cardiovascular events, yielding event rates of 1.24 and 1.30 per 100 patient-years and a hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11) for etoricoxib compared with diclofenac. Rates of upper gastrointestinal clinical events (perforation, bleeding, obstruction, ulcer) were lower with etoricoxib than with diclofenac (0.67 vs 0.97 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.69 [0.57-0.83]), but the rates of complicated upper gastrointestinal events were similar for etoricoxib (0.30) and diclofenac (0.32). INTERPRETATION: Rates of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with arthritis on etoricoxib are similar to those in patients on diclofenac with long-term use of these drugs.

Li LC, Maetzel A, Davis AM, Lineker SC, Bombardier C, Coyte PC. · Ottawa Health Research Institute, and Arthritis Research Society of Canada, 895 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16739183 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) of services from a primary therapist compared with traditional physical therapists and/or occupational therapists for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from the societal perspective. METHODS: Patients with RA were randomly assigned to the primary therapist model (PTM) or traditional treatment model (TTM) for approximately 6 weeks of rehabilitation treatment. Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured with the EuroQol instrument at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. Direct and indirect costs, including visits to health professionals, use of investigative tests, hospital visits, use of medications, purchases of adaptive aids, and productivity losses incurred by patients and their caregivers, were collected monthly. RESULTS: Of 144 consenting patients, 111 remained in the study after the baseline assessment: 63 PTM (87.3% women, mean age 54.2 years, disease duration 10.6 years) and 48 TTM (79.2% women, mean age 56.8 years, disease duration 13.2 years). From a societal perspective, PTM generated higher QALYs (mean +/- SD 0.068 +/- 0.22) and resulted in a higher mean cost ($6,848 Canadian, interquartile range [IQR] $1,984-$9,320) compared with TTM (mean +/- SD QALY -0.017 +/- 0.24; mean costs $6,266, IQR $1,938-$10,194) in 6 months, although differences were not statistically significant. The estimated ICE ratio was $13,700 per QALY gained (95% nonparametric confidence interval -$73,500, $230,000). CONCLUSION: The PTM has potential to be an alternative to traditional physical/occupational therapy, although it is premature to recommend widespread use of this model in other regions. Further research should focus on strategies to reduce costs of the model and assess the long-term economic consequences in managing RA and other rheumatologic conditions.

Li LC, Davis AM, Lineker SC, Coyte PC, Bombardier C. · Ottawa Health Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, 1053 Carling Avenue, Administration Building Rm. #2-014, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16463410 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the primary therapist model (PTM), provided by a single rheumatology-trained primary therapist, with the traditional treatment model (TTM), provided by a physical therapy (PT) and/or occupational therapy (OT) generalist, for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Eligible patients were adults requiring rehabilitation treatment who had not received PT/OT in the past 2 years. Participants were randomized to the PTM or TTM group. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of clinical responders who experienced a > or =20% improvement in 2 of the following measures from baseline to 6 months: Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain visual analog scale, and Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit RA Knowledge Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 144 consenting patients, 33 (10 PTM participants, 23 TTM participants) dropped out without completing any followup assessment, leaving 111 for analysis (63 PTM participants, 48 TTM participants). The majority were women (PTM 87.3%, TTM 79.2%), with a mean age of 54.2 years and 56.8 years for the PTM and TTM groups, respectively. Average disease duration was 10.6 years and 13.2 years for each group, respectively. At 6 months, 44.4% of patients in the PTM group were clinical responders versus 18.8% in the TTM group (chi(2) = 8.09, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Compared with the TTM, the PTM was associated with better outcomes in patients with RA. The results, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the high dropout rate in the TTM group.

Tannenbaum H, Bombardier C, Davis P, Russell AS, Anonymous00204. · Rheumatic Disease Centre of Montreal, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16331802 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To revisit our previous evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate prescription of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) with particular emphasis on cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs). METHODS: Needs assessments were conducted among Canadian physicians to determine their educational needs surrounding NSAID/coxibs. A survey of patients with arthritis was also conducted. Consensus participants reviewed articles relating to NSAID/coxibs in peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and December 2004. At the consensus meeting, held January 21-23, 2005, participants discussed selected topics, after which recommendations were formulated and debated. Results. At the time of the meeting, it was agreed that emerging cardiovascular data were not clear enough to decide whether unanticipated cardiovascular events associated with coxibs represent a class effect or an effect of an individual drug. However, publications that appeared shortly after the meeting, as well as data presented at both the Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee of the US Food and Drug Administration, February 16-18, 2005, and Health Canada's Expert Advisory Panel on the Safety of Cox-2 Selective NSAID, June 9-10, 2005, clarified that all available coxibs do carry some degree of cardiovascular risk, denoting a class effect. Our consensus group made the following specific recommendations: (1) Patients should be fully informed about treatment options, including the need to balance between cardiovascular risks and gastrointestinal (GI) benefits of NSAID/coxibs. (2) Coxibs are as effective as nonselective NSAID and superior to acetaminophen for the symptoms of arthritis. Topical NSAID may also be beneficial. (3) Coxibs are associated with fewer severe GI complications than nonselective NSAID. A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) should be prescribed if an NSAID must be used in a patient at increased GI risk. (4) The renal/blood pressure (BP) impact of coxibs is similar to that of NSAID. (5) In individuals at risk, creatinine clearance and BP should be determined at baseline and shortly after treatment begins. (6) In the geriatric population, use of nonpharmacological therapies should be maximized, and special caution is required before prescribing oral NSAID/coxibs. (7) Patients taking rofecoxib have been shown to have an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Current data suggest that this increased cardiovascular risk may be an effect of the NSAID/coxib class. (8) Although the data are limited, coxibs may be more cost-effective for patients at high GI risk than nonselective NSAID plus proprietary PPI. CONCLUSION: Coxibs continue to be an option in the treatment armamentarium. Given the evolving cardiovascular information, physicians and patients should weigh the benefits and risks of NSAID/coxib treatment. This concern emphasizes the need to routinely reassess patients' risks. These recommendations, which were formulated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, are intended to be used as guidelines to supplement, but not replace, the physician's judgment in clinical decision-making.

Irigoyen P, Lee AT, Wener MH, Li W, Kern M, Batliwalla F, Lum RF, Massarotti E, Weisman M, Bombardier C, Remmers EF, Kastner DL, Seldin MF, Criswell LA, Gregersen PK. · North Shore-Long Island Jewish Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York 11030, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16320316 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between HLA-DRB1 alleles and the production of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) and rheumatoid factor (RF) autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We studied 1,723 Caucasian RA patients enrolled in the North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium (NARAC) family cohort and the Study of New Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis (SONORA) cohort. All patients were tested for anti-CCP antibodies (by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), RF (by nephelometry), and HLA-DR genotype (by polymerase chain reaction and sequence-specific oligonucleotide hybridization). RESULTS: When controlled for the presence of RF, anti-CCP positivity was strongly associated with the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE). In RF+ patients, the presence of the SE was very significantly associated with anti-CCP positivity, with an odds ratio (OR) of 5.8 and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 4.1-8.3. This relationship was also seen in RF- patients (OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.8-5.3]). In contrast, RF positivity was not significantly associated with presence of the SE independently of anti-CCP antibodies. Strikingly, HLA-DRB1*03 was strongly associated with reduced anti-CCP titers, even after controlling for the presence of the SE and restricting the analysis to anti-CCP+ patients. HLA-DR3 was also associated with anti-CCP- RA in our population. CONCLUSION: The HLA-DRB1 SE is strongly associated with the production of anti-CCP antibodies, but not RF. In contrast, HLA-DR3 alleles are associated with anti-CCP- disease and with lower levels of anti-CCP antibodies, even when controlling for the SE. These data emphasize the complexity of the genetic effects of the major histocompatibility complex on the RA phenotype.

Wells GA, Boers M, Shea B, Brooks PM, Simon LS, Strand CV, Aletaha D, Anderson JJ, Bombardier C, Dougados M, Emery P, Felson DT, Fransen J, Furst DE, Hazes JM, Johnson KR, Kirwan JR, Landewé RB, Lassere MN, Michaud K, Suarez-Almazor M, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Van der Heijde DM, van Riel PL, Wolfe F, Tugwell PS. · Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16206362 No free full text.

Abstract: Agreement on response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has allowed better standardization and interpretation of clinical trial reports. With recent advances in therapy, the proportion of patients achieving a satisfactory state of minimal disease activity (MDA) is becoming a more important measure with which to compare different treatment strategies. The threshold for MDA is between high disease activity and remission and, by definition, anyone in remission will also be in MDA. True remission is still rare in RA; in addition, the American College of Rheumatology definition is difficult to apply in the context of trials. Participants at OMERACT 6 in 2002 agreed on a conceptual definition of minimal disease activity (MDA): "that state of disease activity deemed a useful target of treatment by both the patient and the physician, given current treatment possibilities and limitations." To prepare for a preliminary operational definition of MDA for use in clinical trials, we asked rheumatologists to assess 60 patient profiles describing real RA patients seen in routine clinical practice. Based on their responses, several candidate definitions for MDA were designed and discussed at the OMERACT 7 in 2004. Feedback from participants and additional on-site analyses in a cross-sectional database allowed the formulation of 2 preliminary, equivalent definitions of MDA: one based on the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) index, and one based on meeting cutpoints in 5 out the 7 WHO/ILAR core set measures. Researchers applying these definitions first need to choose whether to use the DAS28 or the core set definition, because although each selects a similar proportion in a population, these are not always the same patients. In both MDA definitions, an initial decision node places all patients in MDA who have a tender joint count of 0 and a swollen joint count of 0, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) no greater than 10 mm. If this condition is not met: * The DAS28 definition places patients in MDA when DAS28 < or = 2.85; * The core set definition places patients in MDA when they meet 5 of 7 criteria: (1) Pain (0-10) < or = 2; (2) Swollen joint count (0-28) < or = 1; (3) Tender joint count (0-28) < or = 1; (4) Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ, 0-3) < or = 0.5; (5) Physician global assessment of disease activity (0-10) < or = 1.5; (6) Patient global assessment of disease activity (0-10) < or = 2; (7) ESR < or = 20. This set of 2 definitions gained approval of 73% of the attendees. These (and other) definitions will now be subject to further validation in other databases.

Day D, Furlan A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. · Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada. · J Clin Epidemiol. · Pubmed #16167387 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assess the efficacy of simplified search strategies and identify the best electronic bibliographic database for clinical trials in the field of musculoskeletal disorders and pain. METHODS: Clinical trials within selected reviews from the Cochrane Back, Musculoskeletal, and PaPaS Review Groups were searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL to identify which database included the highest percentage of trials. Simplified search strategies for each review were devised and compared to the original, more complex strategy for sensitivity, specificity and precision. RESULTS: Individually, MEDLINE, and EMBASE included 90 and 89% of the relevant studies respectively, and 94% when combined. CENTRAL contained 87% and CINAHL 31%. Generally, simplified search strategies (two to four lines) had higher specificity than the original strategies (approximately 27 lines). Sensitivity was also high, but varied according to intervention. Super simple search strategies (one to two lines) proved as sensitive, but were slightly less specific, depending on the intervention. Both simple and super simple search strategies were often more precise than the original. CONCLUSION: Simplified search strategies are an effective, efficient way to search for clinical trials. They work best when the intervention is a pharmaceutical or a well-defined physical treatment. Their sensitivity, however, is not adequate for conducting systematic reviews.

Lee AT, Li W, Liew A, Bombardier C, Weisman M, Massarotti EM, Kent J, Wolfe F, Begovich AB, Gregersen PK. · North Shore-LIJ Research Institute, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA. · Genes Immun. · Pubmed #15674368 No free full text.

Abstract: We have recently described the association between rheumatoid arthritis and a coding single-nucleotide polymorphism in the intracellular protein tyrosine phosphatase, PTPN22. The disease-associated polymorphism, 1858 C/T (rs2476601), encodes an amino-acid change (R620W) in one of four SH3 domain binding sites in the PTPN22 molecule. We have now extended our initial studies to address three questions: (1) Is the association with rheumatoid arthritis limited to rheumatoid factor (RF) positive disease? (2) Does homozygosity for PTPN22 R620W substantially increase disease susceptibility? (3) Is there an interaction between PTPN22 and the rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated HLA-DRB1 shared epitope alleles? A total of 1413 Caucasian rheumatoid arthritis patients and 1401 Caucasian controls were genotyped. The results support the view that PTPN22 was strongly and preferentially associated with RF positive disease (OR=1.75, 95% CI 1.46-2.10, P=1.3 x 10(-9)). The PTPN22 risk allele was not significantly associated with RF negative disease (OR=1.19, 95% CI 0.92-1.53, P=0.18), although a very weak association cannot be completely excluded. There was a strong dose effect on disease risk; two copies of the PTPN22 R620W allele more than doubles the risk for RF positive RA (OR=4.57, 95% CI 2.35-8.89). There was no evidence of a genetic association between PTPN22 and HLA susceptibility alleles.