Rheumatoid Arthritis: Landewe R

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.

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.

Keeling SO, Landewe R, van der Heijde D, Bathon J, Boers M, Garnero P, Geusens P, El-Gabalawy H, Inman RD, Kraus VB, Kvien TK, Mease PJ, Ostergaard M, Ritchlin C, Syversen SW, Maksymowych WP. · Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17343310 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: A list of 14 criteria for guiding the validation of a soluble biomarker as reflecting structural damage endpoints in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials was drafted by an international working group after a Delphi consensus exercise. C-reactive protein (CRP), a soluble biomarker extensively studied in RA, was then used to test these criteria. Our objectives were: (1) To assess the strength of evidence in support of CRP as a soluble biomarker reflecting structural damage in RA according to the draft validation criteria. (2) To assess the strength of recommendation for inclusion of individual criteria in the draft set. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to elicit evidence in support of each specific criterion composing the 14-criteria draft set. A summary of the key literature findings per criterion was presented to both the working group and to participants in a special interest soluble biomarker group at OMERACT 8. Participants at OMERACT 8 were asked to rate the strength of evidence and the strength of the recommendation in support of each individual criterion on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Working group members not present at OMERACT voted by a Web-based survey. RESULTS: Minimal data were extracted from the literature pertaining to those criteria listed under the category of truth. Ratings for strength of evidence were moderate to low (< 7) for CRP as a biomarker reflecting structural damage in RA; this was true for all criteria except those listed under the category of feasibility and 2 listed under the category of discrimination pertaining to assay reproducibility and evidence regarding sources of variability. Ratings for strength of recommendation for inclusion of each of the 14 criteria in the draft set were high (> 7) except for those criteria listed under the category of truth. CONCLUSION: The draft criteria serve as a useful template in the evaluation of the strength of evidence in support of a particular soluble biomarker as reflecting structural damage in RA.

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.

Maksymowych WP, Landewe R, Boers M, Garnero P, Geusens P, El-Gabalawy H, Heinegard D, Kraus VB, Krause V, Lohmander S, Matyas J, Saxne T, van der Heijde D. · Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17343311 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Recent work has shown that several soluble biomarkers, detectable in peripheral blood, synovial fluid, and/or urine, reflect remodeling of joint tissues and may therefore constitute outcome measures that reflect joint damage. Consequently, it is now desirable to begin the process of developing criteria for validation of a soluble biomarker as an outcome measure reflecting structural damage progression in trials of disease-modifying therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA). Our objective was to develop validation criteria for a soluble biomarker to be regarded as a valid biomarker reflecting radiological endpoints in RA and SpA clinical trials. METHODS: A special interest group was established comprising investigators with expertise in soluble biomarker assay development as well as in outcomes research. This project was initiated by means of a Delphi consensus exercise. A list of draft criteria was first generated following a review of a US National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2000 white paper (available at: http://www.niams.nih.gov/ne/oi/ oabiomarwhipap.htm) that focused on biomarkers in OA, and these were organized under subject headings relevant to the OMERACT filter: truth, discrimination, and feasibility. Additional criteria were solicited from the working group. This was followed by 3 rounds of voting. RESULTS: A list of 31 criteria was generated prior to voting. The first 2 rounds of voting resulted in cumulative agreement that 19 criteria be retained and 4 discarded, while discrepancies were recorded for 8 criteria. In the third round of voting, cumulative agreement was achieved to retain 5 of the 8 discrepant criteria, so that the final list included 24 criteria. CONCLUSION: A draft set of criteria for validation of a soluble biomarker to be regarded as reflecting radiological damage endpoints in clinical trials has been proposed on the basis of consensus.

Diarra D, Stolina M, Polzer K, Zwerina J, Ominsky MS, Dwyer D, Korb A, Smolen J, Hoffmann M, Scheinecker C, van der Heide D, Landewe R, Lacey D, Richards WG, Schett G. · Department of Internal Medicine 3 and Institute for Clinical Immunology, University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, Krankenhausstrasse 12, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. · Nat Med. · Pubmed #17237793 No free full text.

Abstract: Degenerative and inflammatory joint diseases lead to a destruction of the joint architecture. Whereas degenerative osteoarthritis results in the formation of new bone, rheumatoid arthritis leads to bone resorption. The molecular basis of these different patterns of joint disease is unknown. By inhibiting Dickkopf-1 (DKK-1), a regulatory molecule of the Wnt pathway, we were able to reverse the bone-destructive pattern of a mouse model of rheumatoid arthritis to the bone-forming pattern of osteoarthritis. In this way, no overall bone erosion resulted, although bony nodules, so-called osteophytes, did form. We identified tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) as a key inducer of DKK-1 in the mouse inflammatory arthritis model and in human rheumatoid arthritis. These results suggest that the Wnt pathway is a key regulator of joint remodeling.