Rheumatoid Arthritis: Felson D

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.

Conaghan PG, Felson D, Gold G, Lohmander S, Totterman S, Altman R. · Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. · Osteoarthritis Cartilage. · Pubmed #16713722 No free full text.

Abstract: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides a sensitive tool for examining all the structures involved in the osteoarthritis (OA) process. While much of the MRI literature previously focussed on cartilage, there is increasing research on whole-organ evaluation and including features such as synovitis, bone marrow edema, and meniscal and ligamentous pathology. The aim of this session at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Workshop for Consensus in Osteoarthritis Imaging was to describe the current MRI methods for identifying and quantifying non-cartilaginous structures and review their associations with both OA symptoms and structural progression. Although there is much experience in measuring synovitis (derived from the rheumatoid arthritis literature), only one study has reported an association of MRI-detected synovitis and effusions with OA pain. Bone marrow edema lesions, which may represent areas of trabecular remodelling, have been associated with pain and compartment-specific structural deterioration. MRI studies have confirmed the frequency and importance of meniscal damage in progressive cartilage loss, but not related such damage to symptoms. Osteophytes have been associated with cartilage loss and malalignment to the side of the osteophyte. Ligament damage, including anterior cruciate ligament tears, has been found more commonly than expected in painful OA knees. Improvements in quantitative and semi-quantitative assessments of non-cartilage features will greatly assist understanding of the OA process and its response to therapy.

Wells G, Anderson J, Boers M, Felson D, Heiberg T, Hewlett S, Johnson K, Kirwan J, Lassere M, Robinson V, Shea B, Simon L, Strand V, van Riel P, Tugwell P. · Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12734920 No free full text.

Abstract: The OMERACT 6 Minimal Clinically Important Difference/Low Disease Activity Workshop was organized with the aim of meeting the many challenges that exist in determining a low disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This article presents an overview of that workshop, including results of the voting, a summary of associated discussions, recommendations, and a proposed research agenda.

Wells G, Boers M, Shea B, Anderson J, Felson D, Johnson K, Kirwan J, Lassere M, Robinson V, Simon L, Strand V, van Riel P, Tugwell P. · Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12734918 No free full text.

Abstract: The MCID (minimal clinically important difference) module of OMERACT 5 developed a research agenda that led to the conclusion that a state of low disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would need to be defined. To develop such a definition the various concepts and terminologies, the process for developing an operational definition, and the availability and design of longitudinal datasets for validation needed to be considered. This article describes the process of the MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop at OMERACT 6 to develop such a definition.

Pincus T, Strand V, Koch G, Amara I, Crawford B, Wolfe F, Cohen S, Felson D. · Division of Rheumatology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37232, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12632413 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of a pooled index of only the 3 patient self-report questionnaire measures among the 7 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core data set (Core Data Set) measures to distinguish efficacy of active treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with leflunomide or methotrexate versus placebo in a randomized, controlled clinical trial, and to compare the results with those obtained using the ACR 20% response criteria (ACR20), Disease Activity Score (DAS), and other pooled indices. METHODS: The 7 ACR Core Data Set measures of 1) joint swelling, 2) joint tenderness, 3) physician global assessment, 4) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), 5) functional disability, 6) pain, and 7) patient global assessment were combined into the following 5 pooled indices: "All Core Data Set" (all 7 measures), "Assessor Only" (measures 1-3), "Assessor + ESR" (measures 1-4), "Patient Only" (measures 5-7), and "Patient + ESR" (measures 4-7). The capacity of each of these 5 indices to detect differences between active treatment and placebo treatment was compared with that of the ACR20 and the DAS using 4 different analytic methods, each of which presented advantages and limitations. Agreement of the indices with one another and with the ACR20 and the DAS was analyzed according to pairwise kappa statistics and Z scores in multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Each of the 5 indices, including "Patient Only," had a similar capacity to detect greater efficacy of leflunomide and methotrexate versus placebo in this clinical trial, according to each of 4 methods, at similar levels of statistical and clinical significance. CONCLUSION: A pooled index of patient self-report questionnaire Core Data Set measures appears to be as informative as ACR20 responses, DAS scores, and pooled indices of all and assessor-derived Core Data Set measures for distinguishing between active treatment and placebo treatment in this RA clinical trial.

Furst D, Felson D, Thoren G, Gendreau RM. · Virginia Mason Research Center and University of Washington, Seattle 98101, USA. · Ther Apher. · Pubmed #11111818 No free full text.

Abstract: A double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study was conducted to determine the efficacy of a promising immunoadsorption treatment device containing staphylococcal protein A (Prosorba Immunoadsorption Column, Cypress Bioscience, Inc., San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Eligibility criteria required adult RA patients who had failed either methotrexate or 2 other disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and who had predefined active disease. All disease-modifying agents were discontinued at least 30 days prior to entry. Patients received 12 weekly procedures after being randomized to the active treatment arm or to the sham treatment arm (apheresis only). Evaluations were double-blinded and occurred at baseline and periodically for 24 weeks thereafter. Primary efficacy was assessed at 7 and 8 weeks after the completion of 12 treatments (at trial Weeks 19 and 20) using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) definition of improvement (1,2), and results from the assessments at Weeks 19 and 20 were averaged. Ninety-nine randomized patients had a mean disease duration of 15.4 years and received an average of greater than 5 DMARD regimens prior to entry. Analysis of patients who completed all treatments and follow-up indicated that 15 of 36 (41.7%) column-treated patients responded compared to 5 of 32 (15.6%) sham-treated patients (p < or = 0.003). Intent to treat analysis of all patients who were randomized in the study indicated 15 of 52 (28.9%) column-treated patients responded compared to only 5 of 47 (10.6%) patients who received sham treatments (p = .005). Common adverse events (AEs) included joint pain, fatigue, joint swelling, and hypotension. Central line usage was clearly associated with significant AEs during this trial and is not recommended. Hemoglobin, hematocrit, and mean corpuscular volume values decreased similarly in both treatment arms, attributed to phlebotomy for laboratory and scientific studies and to small, repetitive (normal) apheresis losses. Other AEs such as nausea, rash, pruritus, flushing, and fever occurred in 1 to 6% of treatments in each arm (NS). There was no significant increase in AEs in column-treated patients compared to sham-treated patients. Protein A immunoadsorption was proven to be a new therapeutic alternative in patients with severe, refractory disease.

Wolfe F, Boers M, Felson D, Michaud K, Wells GA. · National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases and University ofKansas School of Medicine, Wichita, Kansas 67214, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #19332634 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as determined by physicians and patients independently, and to determine the degree of agreement among methods, the strength of predictor variables of remission, and the length of remission. METHODS: Eight hundred patients with RA completed a remission questionnaire on the day of their rheumatologist visit and their rheumatologists completed a separate questionnaire the same day. The question(s) were: "Given all your experience with disease activity in RA, are you [is your patient] currently in remission?". Patients also completed 0-10 visual analog scales for RA activity, pain, and functional limitation. RESULTS: The percentage of patients in remission by physician and patient assessment was 34.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.4-38.2] and 30.9% (95% CI 27.7-34.20), respectively. The percentage of patients classified concordantly (full agreement) was 78.6%, and the associated kappa statistic was 0.54 (95% CI 0.45-0.58). The median duration of remission was 2.0 years. The median RA activity, pain, and functional scores were 1.0, 1.5, and 1.25 for patient-determined remission and 1.5, 1.5, and 1.5 for physician-determined remission. CONCLUSION: Physician and patient estimates of remission in RA are similar (34.8% to 30.9%), and agreement was 78.6% (kappa 0.53). Based on previous data and the observed presence of disease activity, this definition of remission appears to be a measure of minimal disease activity rather than true remission. The problem of remission rates will not be solved until a consensus definition that has relevance in research and the clinic is developed.

Karonitsch T, Aletaha D, Boers M, Bombardieri S, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, Felson D, Gomez-Reino J, Keystone E, Kvien TK, Martin-Mola E, Matucci-Cerinic M, Richards P, van Riel P, Siegel J, Smolen JS, Sokka T, van der Heijde D, van Vollenhoven R, Ward M, Wells G, Zink A, Landewe R. · Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18791056 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To use an evidence-based and consensus-based approach to elaborate recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: After an initial expert meeting, during which relevant research questions were identified, a systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library as sources. To ensure literature retrieved was comprehensive, we emphasised search algorithms that were sensitive rather than specific. The results of the literature search were discussed by the expert panel, modified and expanded, and were used as the basis for the elaboration of the recommendation in the consensus process. Finally, an independent ACR panel approved these items with some minor modifications. RESULTS: The following pieces of evidence were obtained from the literature search: (1) timing and the sustaining of a response is relevant to achieve better outcomes; (2) composite disease activity indices have been used to define low disease activity and remission and these definitions have been validated as has the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) remission criteria. The "patient-reported symptom state" (PASS) is not yet well validated; (3) evidence was obtained to identify those measures, scales and patient-reported instruments, for which there is a documented association with relevant outcomes; (4) baseline disease activity is associated with disease activity levels at the end of follow-up; and (5) there was not sufficient evidence relating the added benefit of MRI or ultrasound over clinical assessments. Most data stemmed from observational studies rather than clinical trials and literature review was supplemented by input from experts. The results served as the basis for the elaboration of the seven recommendations by the experts. CONCLUSIONS: The approach based on scientific evidence from the literature as well as on expert input provided sufficient information to derive recommendations on reporting disease activity in RA clinical trials. The methodology, results and conclusions of this project were endorsed by EULAR and the ACR.

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.

Singh JA, Solomon DH, Dougados M, Felson D, Hawker G, Katz P, Paulus H, Wallace C, Anonymous00073. · No affiliation provided · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16739201 links to  free full text

Abstract: RELEVANCE TO THE CLINICIAN: Clinicians already know that not all patients who are diagnosed with rheumatic diseases really have them. Moreover, determining which patients have improved and by how much is also difficult. Classification criteria allow clinical researchers to recruit patients with similar diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus) into studies. Response criteria help to determine whether treatments really work, i.e., whether they actually produce clinically important improvement. As the science of clinical research advances, we must update our standards for considering classification and response criteria. In this editorial, members of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Subcommittee on Classification and Response Criteria describe the purpose of criteria sets, their development and validation, and the role of the ACR in adopting them.

Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D. · VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut 06520-8031, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12610798 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Some people believe that certain issues should be protected from all trade-offs. These issues are referred to as "protected values." We investigated whether some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treat the risk of adverse effects (AE) as "protected values," i.e., as unacceptable regardless of how small the risk. METHODS: Patients with RA rated willingness to risk 17 different AE on a visual analog scale, where 0 = not willing under any circumstances and 100 = definitely willing. Participants then rated willingness to take medication as the risk of each AE was progressively decreased by 2 levels from its actual risk, using a 5 level scale ranging from 10 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. RESULTS: Between 32% and 39% of participants were not more willing to accept a risk of AE causing reversible cosmetic changes (e.g., acne), between 35% and 47% were not more willing to accept a risk of AE causing reversible discomfort (e.g., rash), and between 41% and 45% were not more willing to accept a risk of AE causing potential irreversible damage (e.g., pneumonitis) as the probability of each of these AE was substantially decreased. Unwillingness to accept risk of toxicity was especially evident for cancer, where 66% of patients refused to accept a risk of cancer occurring in 1 in 100,000 persons. CONCLUSION: Among patients particularly concerned with the risk of drug toxicity, many remain unwilling to accept the risk of AE even when their probability is decreased to levels far below their actual risk. These results suggest that patients may treat particularly worrisome AE as protected values, which may lead to poor decision-making in clinical practice.

Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D. · Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, VA Connecticut Health Care System, West Haven, CT 06516, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #11934960 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient willingness to accept the risk of adverse effects (AEs) commonly associated with arthritis medications. METHODS: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were asked to rate their willingness to take a medication associated with 17 specific AEs using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: We interviewed 100 patients. Eighty-one were currently using one or more disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and 29 had previously experienced AEs related to DMARDs. Seventy-five stated that they were doing very well or well with respect to their arthritis compared with other people their age. Thirty-five per cent of those interviewed were unwilling to accept the risk of cosmetic changes, 38% were unwilling to accept the risk of temporary discomfort and 45% were unwilling to accept the risk of major toxicity. Patients who had previously experienced AEs were more willing to accept the risk of cosmetic changes (83 vs. 58%, P=0.02), temporary discomfort (79 vs. 55%, P=0.02) and major toxicity (83 vs. 44%, P=0.001) compared with those who had not previously experienced AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Many rheumatoid arthritis patients are very concerned about potential drug toxicity. However, risk adversity appeared to be attenuated by past experience with AEs. Our results suggest that certain patients, especially those with milder disease activity, might be reluctant to accept commonly used arthritis medications if they are fully informed of their potential toxicity.

Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D. · Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8031, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11324776 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To quantify preference for disclosure of information among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to examine sex-specific correlates of information preference. METHODS: We interviewed patients with RA and assessed preference for disclosure of information using 4 questions from the previously validated "Information Preference Seeking Scale." Three questions addressed preference for disclosure of side effects and 1 question addressed preference for disclosure of therapeutic options. Associations between preference for information and patient characteristics were examined using stepwise multiple linear regression. RESULTS: One hundred RA patients (mean age 68+/-12 years; 73% female) were interviewed; 89 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with all 4 statements reflecting a preference for full disclosure, and an additional 8 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with 3 of the 4 statements. The mean score (+/- SD) for information preference was 86+/-13, on a scale from 0 to 100 where 100 reflected a strong preference for full disclosure. In bivariate analyses, female sex and current employment were associated with stronger preferences for being informed (mean score for women 88+/-11, for men 80+/-15 [P = 0.02]; for employed 92+/-11, for unemployed 84+/-13 [P = 0.04]). Multivariate sex-specific analyses demonstrated that current employment and higher education level were positively associated with preference for disclosure among women and men, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of our survey suggest that RA patients want to be fully informed about the risks associated with medications and about alternative options. The challenge remaining for rheumatologists is how to effectively communicate the risks and benefits related to the many options that are currently available for RA patients.

Molenaar ET, Boers M, van der Heijde DM, Alarcón G, Bresnihan B, Cardiel M, Edmonds J, Felson D, Furst DE, Kirwan J, Lassere M, Paulus H, Rau R, van Riel PL, Scott D, Simon L, Strand V. · Department of Rheumatology, VU University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10090196 No free full text.

Abstract: None of the current scoring methods for radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is ideal. The objective for RA imaging at OMERACT IV was to start discussion about the problems and applicability of the current scoring methods for radiological damage and to start discussion on the challenge of new imaging techniques. The RA imaging module comprised preconference reading material, plenary sessions, small group discussions, and a plenary report of the group sessions, combined with interactive voting. The OMERACT filter guided the discussions. Priorities for further research in imaging studies were: (1) pathologies versus features on radiographs; (2) relation with longterm outcome; and (3) definition of minimum clinically important difference.