Rheumatoid Arthritis: Dougados M

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.

Fautrel B, Pham T, Mouterde G, Le Loët X, Goupille P, Guillemin F, Ravaud P, Cantagrel A, Dougados M, Puéchal X, Sibilia J, Soubrier M, Mariette X, Combe B, Anonymous00061, Anonymous00062. · Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris VI, UFR de Médecine, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #18037319 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To update French Society for Rheumatology guidelines regarding the use of TNFalpha antagonists for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Existing guidelines were updated using the AGREE instrument. Items that required updating were selected by a task force, the relevant literature was critically appraised, and new wording was suggested by a limited committee of experts then validated by the task force and subsequently by a panel of external reviewers. The three-topic structure of the recommendations (indication, initiation, and adjustment) and the final algorithm format were maintained. RESULTS: Of the 12 items, five were selected for updating; one pertained to the indication for treatment with TNFalpha antagonists, two to treatment initiation, and two to treatment adjustment. Of the four initially recommended criteria for determining that TNFalpha antagonist therapy is indicated, the first three were left unchanged (confirmed diagnosis of RA; active disease for more than 1month with objective evidence of inflammation or progressive structural damage, or dependency on glucocorticoid therapy, or progressive radiographic damage; and failure to respond adequately to methotrexate - or another agent when methotrexate is contraindicated - in the optimal tolerated dosage). The fourth and last criterion was modified as follows: co-morbidities should be evaluated in order to distinguish absolute contraindications from relative contraindications that require referral to a specialist. Of the four initial recommendations about TNFalpha antagonist initiation, the first and fourth were left unchanged (a workup should be performed prior to treatment initiation, and the patient should receive regular standardized follow-up); the second and third recommendations were modified as follows: there is no evidence that one TNFalpha antagonist is more effective than the others, and concomitant methotrexate therapy is generally advisable, regardless of the TNFalpha antagonist used. Of the four recommendations about treatment adjustment, the first two were modified as follows: the goal of treatment is to achieve the EULAR response criteria or better; and in non-responders, the dosage or dosing interval can be modified when infliximab is used, methotrexate should be added when the TNFalpha antagonist is used alone, and in all other situations the patient should be switched to a different TNFalpha antagonist. The other two recommendations about treatment adjustment were left unchanged (patients who fail to tolerate one TNFalpha antagonist can be switched to another TNFalpha antagonist if allowed by the nature of the adverse event; and when a remission is achieved, reduction or discontinuation of symptomatic drugs - most notably glucocorticoids - is appropriate, followed in the event of a prolonged remission by changes in the dosage and/or dosing interval of the TNFalpha antagonist or concomitant disease-modifying drug). CONCLUSION: These recommendations are designed to help practitioners optimize the use of TNFalpha antagonists in patients with RA seen in everyday practice. They do not constitute regulations.

Combe B, Landewe R, Lukas C, Bolosiu HD, Breedveld F, Dougados M, Emery P, Ferraccioli G, Hazes JM, Klareskog L, Machold K, Martin-Mola E, Nielsen H, Silman A, Smolen J, Yazici H. · Immuno-Rhumatologie, Lapeyronie Hosp, Montpellier, France. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16396980 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To formulate EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis. METHODS: In accordance with EULAR's "standardised operating procedures", the task force pursued an evidence based approach and an approach based on expert opinion. A steering group comprised of 14 rheumatologists representing 10 European countries. The group defined the focus of the process, the target population, and formulated an operational definition of "management". Each participant was invited to propose issues of interest regarding the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis. Fifteen issues for further research were selected by use of a modified Delphi technique. A systematic literature search was carried out. Evidence was categorised according to usual guidelines. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the literature search.. The strength of the recommendations was based on the category of evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: 15 research questions, covering the entire spectrum of "management of early arthritis", were formulated for further research; and 284 studies were identified and evaluated. Twelve recommendations for the management of early arthritis were selected and presented with short sentences. The selected statements included recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognosis, classification, and treatment of early arthritis (information, education, non-pharmacological interventions, pharmacological treatments, and monitoring of the disease process). On the basis of expert opinion, 11 items were identified as being important for future research. CONCLUSIONS: 12 key recommendations for the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis were developed, based on evidence in the literature and expert consensus.

Dougados M. · No affiliation provided · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17924604 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Dougados M. · No affiliation provided · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #17587628 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Dougados M. · No affiliation provided · Ann Med Interne (Paris). · Pubmed #11937985 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Lipsky PE, Abramson SB, Breedveld FC, Brook P, Burmester R, Buttgereit F, Cannon GW, Catella-Lawson F, Crofford LJ, Doherty M, Dougados M, DuBois RN, Froelich J, Garcia Rodriguez LA, Gibofsky A, Hernandez-Diaz S, Hochberg MC, Krause A, Liang MH, Machold K, Peloso PM, Raisz LG, Schayes B, Scheiman JM, Simon LS, Smolen J. · No affiliation provided · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10852251 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Banal F, Dougados M, Combescure C, Gossec L. · Paris Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, Paris, France. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18728049 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of the widely used ACR set of criteria (both list and tree format) to diagnose RA compared with expert opinion according to disease duration. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed and Embase databases. All articles reporting the prevalence of RA according to ACR criteria and expert opinion in cohorts of early (<1 year duration) or established (>1 year) arthritis were analysed to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of ACR 1987 criteria against the "gold standard" (expert opinion). A meta-analysis using a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was performed and pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated with confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of 138 publications initially identified, 19 were analysable (total 7438 patients, 3883 RA). In early arthritis, pooled sensitivity and specificity of the ACR set of criteria were 77% (68% to 84%) and 77% (68% to 84%) in the list format versus 80% (72% to 88%) and 33% (24% to 43%) in the tree format. In established arthritis, sensitivity and specificity were respectively 79% (71% to 85%) and 90% (84% to 94%) versus 80% (71% to 85%) and 93% (86% to 97%). The SROC meta-analysis confirmed the statistically significant differences, suggesting that diagnostic performances of ACR list criteria are better in established arthritis. CONCLUSION: The specificity of ACR 1987 criteria in early RA is low, and these criteria should not be used as diagnostic tools. Sensitivity and specificity in established RA are higher, which reflects their use as classification criteria gold standard.

Kalyoncu U, Dougados M, Daurès JP, Gossec L. · Paris Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, Paris, France. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18375533 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been increasingly recognised as important in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of use of different PROs in recently published RA articles and to compare the tools used through a systemic literature review. METHODS: (1) DATA SOURCE: In PUBMED MEDLINE database, articles reporting any type of clinical study for adult patients with RA, published between February 2005 and February 2007, and reporting any type of PRO. Articles were excluded if they did not concern adult RA or if they did not report any PROs. (2) DATA EXTRACTION: demographic characteristics of patients, study design, treatment assessed and all PROs. (3) Data analysis: descriptive. RESULTS: Of 109 reports, 50 (45%) were randomised controlled trials and 59 were other types of studies. A total of 63 questionnaires or tools for PROs were used, corresponding to 14 domains of health. Frequently reported domains (and most frequent tools) were: function, 83% (most frequent tool, health assessment questionnaire, HAQ); patient global assessment, 61% (most frequent tool, visual analogue scale, VAS); pain, 56% (VAS); and morning stiffness 27%. Domains such as fatigue, coping or sleep disturbance were infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are reported with great heterogeneity in recently published trials in RA. Some domains that appear important from the patient's perspective are infrequently reported. Further work is needed in this field.

Salliot C, Dougados M, Gossec L. · René-Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, AP-HP, Cochin Hospital, Rheumatology B Department, Paris, France. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18203761 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor alpha blockers in rheumatoid arthritis are known to increase the risk of serious infections defined as life-threatening, requiring hospitalisation or intravenous antibiotics. Recently, new biological agents have become available. Their safety is an important issue. PURPOSE: To assess if biological agents, ie rituximab, abatacept and anakinra increase the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in published randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCE: A systematic review of the literature using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane library and abstracts databases (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism annual meetings) was performed up to October 2007. This search was completed with data from the Food and Drug Administration, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and manufacturers. DATA EXTRACTION: Three fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed to compare serious infection rates between each biological agent and placebo. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated, using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a continuity correction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve randomised controlled trials with data concerning serious infections were analysed (three for rituximab, five for abatacept and four for anakinra). They included 745 patients, 1960 patients, 2062 patients and 2112 patients treated by rituximab, abatacept, anakinra and placebo respectively. The overall pooled ORs did not reveal a statistically significant increased risk of serious infection for abatacept and rituximab; this risk was increased for high doses of anakinra (> or =100 mg daily) versus low dose and placebo (ORs = 9.63 (95% CI, 1.31 to 70.91) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.11 to 10.46) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These meta-analyses did not reveal a significant increase in the risk of serious infections during rituximab or abatacept treatments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; however, high doses of anakinra may increase this risk, especially when patients have comorbidity factors. Large studies must be performed to confirm this safety profile in daily practice.

Gossec L, Tubach F, Dougados M, Ravaud P. · AP-HP, Rheumatology B Department, Cochin Hospital, 27 rue du faubourg St Jacques, Paris 5 University, Paris, France. · Am J Med Sci. · Pubmed #18030180 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: International recommendations such as the CONSORT and International Conference on Harmonisation statements recognize patient adherence to prescribed treatment as an important aspect of a treatment's evaluation, but this issue is little assessed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how medication adherence was assessed and reported in recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: All publications of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments in 6 major chronic diseases published in high-impact-factor journals in 2003 and 2004 were selected from the Medline database. Two investigators analyzed how medication adherence was assessed and reported. RESULTS: A total of 192 publications were analyzed: 71 in HIV infection, 48 diabetes mellitus, 24 rheumatoid arthritis, 23 asthma, 15 hypertension, 7 osteoporosis, and 4 about 2 of these diseases. The assessment of medication adherence was documented in 69 (35.9%) publications, by counting pill intake in half of these. Results of adherence were reported in 64 (33.3%) publications. Adherence was reported as a quantitative measure: Proportion of the treatment prescribed in 27 articles and as a qualitative measure (adherent patient, yes/no) in 41 (in 4 reports both techniques were used). When reported, the median intake of prescribed medication was 93%, and the median proportion of "nonadherent" patients was 6.2%. CONCLUSIONS: There is important variability in the assessment and reporting of medication adherence in published RCTs of pharmacological treatments of selected chronic diseases, for a given disease and across diseases. Standardization is advisable to allow for comparisons among studies.

Dougados M, Aletaha D, van Riel P. · Hopital Cochin, Descartes University, Service de Rhumatologie B, Paris, France. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17977485 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory autoimmune and progressive disease. In patients with RA, persistent disease activity ultimately results in irreversible radiographic damage of the joints with persistent functional loss as a consequence. Disease activity measures assess a disease state at a particular time point. In order to evaluate the course of the disease in daily clinical practice or to judge the efficacy of a treatment in a clinical trial, a measure should also comprise the dimension of time. Composite indices provide a comprehensive view of disease activity and include the Disease Activity Score 28, the American College of Rheumatology criteria and newer indices such as the Clinical Disease Activity Index, the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index, and the Simplified Disease Activity Index. The target of RA treatment is to suppress disease activity as completely as possible, with remission being the ultimate goal. The composite index chosen should, therefore, be applicable to the circumstance in which it will be used, with different requirements in clinical practice versus clinical trials. In addition to the choice of an assessment index, novel disease monitoring strategies have been used to optimize treatment and disease control, as in the TICORA and BeST studies. It is clear that the best benefit for the patient can be obtained by combining the optimal treatment strategy and the most appropriate outcome measure. Low disease activity, intensive monitoring, and rapid adjustments in treatment seem to promise the greatest benefit. Further studies are required to better evaluate the clinical relevance of methods for assessing disease activity in patients with RA.

Keen HI, Lavie F, Wakefield RJ, D'Agostino MA, Hammer HB, Hensor E, Pendleton A, Kane D, Guerini H, Schueller-Weidekamm C, Kortekaas MC, Birrel F, Kloppenburg M, Stamm T, Watt I, Smolen JS, Maheu E, Dougados M, Conaghan PG. · Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17704062 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Painful osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand is common and a validated ultrasound (US) scoring system would be valuable for epidemiological and therapeutic outcome studies. US is increasingly used to assess peripheral joints, though most of the US focus in rheumatic diseases has been on rheumatoid arthritis. We aimed to develop a preliminary US hand OA scoring system, initially focusing on relevant pathological features with potentially high reliability. METHODS: A group of experts in the fields of OA, US and novel tool development agreed on domains and suggested scaling of the items to be used in US hand OA scoring systems. A multi-observer reliability exercise was then performed to evaluate the draft items. RESULTS: Synovitis (grey scale and Power Doppler) and osteophytes (representing activity and damage domains) were included and evaluated as the initial components of the scoring system. All three features were evaluated for their presence/absence and if present were scored using a 1-3 scale. The reliability exercise demonstrated intra-reader kappa values of 0.444-1.0, 0.211-1.0 and 0.087-1.0 for grey scale synovitis, power Doppler and osteophytes respectively. Inter-reader reliability kappa values were 0.398, 0.327 and 0.530 grey-scale synovitis, power Doppler and osteophytes respectively. Without extensive standardisation, both intra- and inter-reader reliability were moderately good. CONCLUSIONS: The draft scoring system demonstrated substantive to almost perfect percentage exact agreement on the presence/absence of the selected OA features and moderate to substantive percentage exact agreement on semi-quantitative grading. This preliminary process provides a good basis from which to further develop an US outcome tool for hand OA that has the potential to be utilised in multicentre clinical trials.

Pinto P, Dougados M. · René Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, France. · Acta Reumatol Port. · Pubmed #17094333 links to  free full text

Abstract: Leflunomide (LEF) is a prodrug that is rapidly converted to its active metabolite A77 1726, that inhibits the novo pyrimidine nucleotide biosynthesis, mediated especially by the dihydroorotate dehidrogenase (DHODH). DMARD properties were documented in rheumatoid arthritis with efficacy, safety and limiting of radiological progression demonstrated in multiple studies. LEF has been also used in other autoimmune diseases, like Psoriatic Arthritis, Wegener granulomatosis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Sarcoidosis and others. This article reviews the place of LEF in clinical practice and outlines its potential applications beyond the officially recognized indication: rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Fitzgerald O, Dougados M. · St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. · Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16777575 No free full text.

Abstract: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common, debilitating auto-immune disease with diverse clinical features. In this paper, published evidence is examined, which addresses the issues that (a) PsA exists; and (b) PsA can or cannot be viewed as a distinct rheumatic disease from other spondyloarthritides. Evidence derived from epidemiological, clinical, genetic and immunohistological studies is included. Summarizing the evidence, it is clear that PsA does indeed exist, with the prevalence of rheumatic disease in patients with psoriasis (Ps) higher than would be expected. Certain clinical features also occur more commonly in PsA, although none can differentiate consistently from other arthropathies. Both genetic and immunohistological studies suggest that PsA, both oligo- and polyarticular disease, can be clearly separated from rheumatoid arthritis and that it belongs to the family of spondyloarthritides. The presence of Ps may confer a more severe clinical phenotype with poor radiological outcome. It may be that, with time, a specific genetic marker or diagnostic feature will emerge; additional, more detailed pathogenic studies are required. In the meanwhile, particularly with new treatments being evaluated, it is important to continue to develop specific classification or diagnostic criteria and to define both clinical and laboratory-based outcome measures.

Avouac J, Gossec L, Dougados M. · René Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, and APHP Cochin Hospital, Rhumatologie B Department, Paris, France. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16606649 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the two generations of anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (CCP) antibodies as a diagnostic marker of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and as a predictor of future development of RA in healthy subjects and in patients with early undifferentiated arthritis. METHODS: A systematic analysis of the literature published between 1999 and February 2006 was conducted. Data were collected on the sensitivity and specificity of the two generations of anti-CCP antibodies for diagnosing RA and predicting future development of the disease. RESULTS: Among 107 studies initially identified, 68 had interpretable data and were analysed. Diagnostic properties were assessed in 58 studies: mean (SD) sensitivity was 53 (10)% (range 41-68) and 68 (15)% (range 39-94) for anti-CCP1 and anti-CCP2, respectively; mean (SD) specificity was 96 (3)% (range 90-99) and 95 (5)% (range 81-100) for anti-CCP1 and anti-CCP2, respectively. Predictive properties were assessed in 14 studies; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of anti-CCP1 and anti-CCP2 for the future development of RA were 20 (14 to 31) and 25 (18 to 35), respectively, among patients with early undifferentiated arthritis and 64.5 (8.5 to 489) and 28 (8 to 95), respectively, among healthy subjects. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of the second generation of anti-CCP is close to that of rheumatoid factor, with a higher specificity, for distinguishing RA from other rheumatic diseases. Moreover, anti-CCP antibodies appear to be highly predictive of the future development of RA in both healthy subjects and patients with undifferentiated arthritis.

Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Burmester GR, Bijlsma JW, Dougados M, Emery P, Keystone EC, Klareskog L, Mease PJ. · 1000 Veteran Avenue Rehabilitation Centre, Room 32-59, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16239380 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M. · Département d'Epidémiologie, Biostatistique et Recherche Clinique, Groupe Hospitalier Bichat-Claude Bernard (AP-HP), INSERM U738, Faculté Xavier Bichat (Université Paris 7), Paris, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16206363 No free full text.

Abstract: The importance of determining a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and a low disease activity state (LDAS) as treatment targets in clinical trials no longer needs to be demonstrated. However, many methodological issues remain: whether these thresholds should be defined for each criterion or for composite criteria, whether there is a difference between the LDAS and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), how to determine these thresholds (i.e., the wording of the questions and the statistical approach), and whether there are confounding factors in their evaluation. We consider these methodological issues and discuss their impact. Methods to determine the thresholds must be standardized, and recommendations could be endorsed by an OMERACT module. Threshold values for the MCID and LDAS should be determined according to data-driven and experts' opinions and approaches.

Soubrier M, Dougados M. · Service de rhumatologie, hôpital G.-Montpied, place H.-Dunant, Clermont-Ferrand, France. · Rev Med Interne. · Pubmed #16040164 No free full text.

Abstract: AIMS: To identify studies which have shown that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with an increase in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. To identify the different factors that may be involved. To consider what management would decrease the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of RA. RESULTS: Epidemiological studies have shown that the risk of a cardiovascular event is increased twofold in RA patients irrespective of the traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Non-invasive methods have shown that RA patients have endothelial dysfunction, decreased arterial compliance and increased intima-media thickers, predictive factors for cardiovascular events in comparison to controls after controlling for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. The increased cardiovascular risk is directly mediated by inflammatory syndrome, which also indirectly increases the risk by inducing dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. Treatments also have a hamful effect, whether it be corticosteroid therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or methotrexate (MTX), which leads to hyperhromocysteinemia. CONCLUSION: It should be possible to decrease cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by a strict control of the disease's activity. We should also take measures to combat other cardiovascular risk factors: as low a dose as possible for corticosteroid therapy, limited prescription of NSAIDs, systematic supplementation of MTX with folic acid encouragement of smoking cessation, regular lipid tests and prescription of statins treatment for hyperlipemia in accordance with current recommendations.

Fautrel B, Pham T, Gossec L, Combe B, Flipo RM, Goupille P, Le Loët X, Mariette X, Puéchal X, Wendling D, Schaeverbeke T, Sibilia J, Sany J, Dougados M. · Service de rhumatologie, groupe hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #15797498 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop recommendations for the information and education of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) seen in everyday practice, using evidence from the literature, supplemented with expert opinion when needed. METHODS: A scientific committee developed eight questions using the Delphi consensus procedure. A task force reviewed the literature for answers to these questions, using the PubMed Medline database (1980-2004) and the 2002-2004 databases of the annual meetings held by the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR), the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR); the indexing terms for the search were rheumatoid, arthritis, patient, education, information, knowledge, general practitioner, family doctor, and continuing medical education. Only articles in French or English were included. A panel of rheumatologists used the evidence thus compiled to develop recommendations for each question; gaps in evidence were filled by calling on the panelists' expert opinion. For each recommendation, the level of evidence and extent of agreement among panelists were specified. RESULTS: There were four general questions about the objectives, supports, and mode of delivery (group or one-on-one) of patient information and education, as well as on evaluating knowledge, and four specific questions on program content. The search identified 1235 articles; 144 were selected on the title and 118 of those on the abstract. Three abstracts presented at meetings were also kept. The evidence from the literature was presented to the panelists during interactive workshops. The panelists then developed eight recommendations, all of which were grade D because no published studies specifically addressed everyday clinical practice. Agreement among panelists ranged across recommendations from 85.7% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Recommendations about educating and informing patients with RA in everyday practice were developed. They should increase practice uniformity and ultimately optimize the management of patients with RA.

Soubrier M, Dougados M. · Service de Rhumatologie, Rheumatology Department, G. Montpied Teaching Hospital, Place Henri Dunant, B.P. 69, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #15797492 No free full text.

Abstract: Four treatment objectives govern the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): to control the clinical manifestations, to prevent structural damage, to prevent functional impairments, and to reduce excess mortality. Disease activity determines the extent of structural damage, the severity of functional impairments, and in part the excess mortality related to cardiovascular disease. In established RA, the functional impairments depend also on the extent of the structural damage. Methods for assessing disease activity, treatment responses, structural damage, and functional impairments are reviewed herein. A standardized follow-up protocol is suggested as a means of achieving greater uniformity in clinical practice.

Raissouni N, Gossec L, Ayral X, Dougados M. · Rheumatology Department B, Cochin Teaching Hospital, 27 rue du Faubourg Saint Jacques, 75679 Paris cedex 14, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #15797490 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis is the most common of all chronic inflammatory joint diseases. Treatment should be initiated early, if possible within the first six months after symptom onset, and should be selected according to the potential for disease progression. Early initiation of combination drug therapy may improve quality of life and long-term outcomes. We used data from a comprehensive literature review to develop a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for incipient undifferentiated inflammatory joint disease.

Soubrier M, Dougados M. · Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital G. Montpied, Place H Dunant, B.P. 69, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand, France. · Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15588972 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disorder in terms of both clinical presentation and outcome. Our goals in RA are directed towards suppression of signs and symptoms of synovitis, prevention of structural damage, maintenance of functionability and reduction of mortality. IgM rheumatoid factor and anticitrulline antibodies should be recorded in clinical practice since they are prognostic values of outcome. As control of disease activity is pivotal to preventing or at least retarding long-term damage, it is important to define stringent therapeutic aims as well as to follow-up patients in daily practice. The disease activity score 28 is a valuable instrument for this purpose. The assessment of radiographic damage and disability should be assessed regularly. Since increased cardiovascular mortality has been documented even in early RA, other cardiovascular risk factors should be looked for and eventually treated.

Zerkak D, Dougados M. · Rheumatology B Department, Cochin Hospital, René Descartes University, Paris, France. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15552518 No free full text.

Abstract: It is now accepted that rheumatoid arthritis is not a benign disease, and has considerable morbidity and increased mortality rates. Monotherapy with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is often ineffective, and rarely leads to sustained clinical remission. Many clinical trials suggest the effectiveness of using combination therapies, and also the benefit of aggressive management early in the course of the disease. However, recent publications studying a variety of combination therapies in rheumatoid arthritis have shown diverse results. Drug combinations at an early stage of rheumatoid arthritis which slow radiographic progression appear to be the most convincing. These data suggest that practitioners should begin with intensive therapy in early disease, and not reserve combination therapy for those who fail monotherapy. The therapeutic strategy should be positioned according to the severity of the disease: in RA with markers indicating severity, combination should be initiated at the start of therapy while it should be instituted in a rapid step-up fashion in mild RA if insufficient efficacy is seen for monotherapy. In general, combinations appear safe and well-tolerated, but continued caution with appropriate monitoring of long-term results and possible toxicities is required.

Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Emery P, van Riel PL, Dougados M, Strand CV, Breedveld FC. · Department of Internal Medicine III, Universitaet Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #15170905 No free full text.

Abstract: In most studies of disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, in combination with either leflunomide or biological agents, patients are given an additional agent after they have failed treatment with methotrexate (MTX). This review of clinical studies shows that leflunomide is clinically efficacious and well tolerated when added to either sulfasalazine or MTX, as both an initial and ongoing treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Experience in combining leflunomide with biological agents is limited to a small number of open-label studies with infliximab. According to the opinion obtained at an International Expert Panel Meeting held in Paris in May 2003, leflunomide can be used in combination therapy: 61% of the Expert Panel would use leflunomide with MTX, 71% with sulfasalazine, 43% with infliximab, 33% with adalimumab, 19% with etanercept, and 38% with anakinra. The Expert Panel stated that the combination of leflunomide and infliximab warrants a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in patients with incomplete clinical responses to leflunomide monotherapy, provided leflunomide is started first, without a loading dose, and infliximab is added after good tolerability to leflunomide has been established. The Expert Panel concluded that combination therapy with leflunomide has a place in the treatment of RA. Caution is advised, however, when using combination treatments and, therefore, the patient's safety should be carefully monitored.