Rheumatoid Arthritis: Martin-Mola E

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.

Zhang W, Doherty M, Leeb BF, Alekseeva L, Arden NK, Bijlsma JW, Dincer F, Dziedzic K, Hauselmann HJ, Kaklamanis P, Kloppenburg M, Lohmander LS, Maheu E, Martin-Mola E, Pavelka K, Punzi L, Reiter S, Smolen J, Verbruggen G, Watt I, Zimmermann-Gorska I, Anonymous00031. · Dr W Zhang, Academic Rheumatology, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18250111 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group, representing 15 European countries, generated 10 key propositions regarding diagnosis using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation, research evidence was searched for systematically. Whenever possible, the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated; relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors for hand OA. Quality of evidence was categorised using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) hierarchy, and strength of recommendation was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Diagnostic topics included clinical manifestations, radiographic features, subgroups, differential diagnosis, laboratory tests, risk factors and comorbidities. The sensitivity, specificity and LR varied between tests depending upon the cut-off level, gold standard and controls. Overall, no single test could be used to define hand OA on its own (LR <10) but a composite of the tests greatly increased the chance of the diagnosis. The probability of a subject having hand OA was 20% when Heberden nodes alone were present, but this increased to 88% when in addition the subject was over 40 years old, had a family history of nodes and had joint space narrowing in any finger joint. CONCLUSION: Ten key recommendations for diagnosis of hand OA were developed using research evidence and expert consensus. Diagnosis of hand OA should be based on assessment of a composite of features.

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.

Muñoz-Fernández S, Alvarez-Doforno R, González-Tarrio JM, Balsa A, Richi P, Fontán G, Gijón-Baños J, Martin-Mola E. · Rheumatology Service and Immunology Section, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10606364 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Antiperinuclear factor (APF) is an autoantibody detected in >50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); it shows a specificity of roughly 90%. We investigated the possible role of APF as a prognostic marker in RA. METHODS: A series of 103 patients with RA who fulfilled the 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria (88 women and 15 men; mean age 55.5 yrs, mean disease duration 9 yrs) were prospectively followed. Sixteen variables were assessed in each patient at inclusion and over a 3 year period. APF was determined by indirect immunofluorescence assay using human buccal mucosal cells as substrate. APF assays were done at entry and at the end of followup without knowledge of the clinical status of the patients. Mann-Whitney U, chi-squared tests, variance analysis, and kappa index were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eighty of 103 patients completed followup. APF was detected in 40 of 80. At inclusion, APF correlated with the visual analog scale (VAS) of pain (p = 0.02). However, patients who showed APF positivity at entry had a less favorable course than APF negative individuals, as shown by a worse VAS of well being (p = 0.01), Ritchie index (p = 0.01), number of painful joints (p = 0.03), grip strength (p = 0.01), C-reactive protein (p = 0.04), and Health Assessment Questionnaire score (p = 0.03) at the end of the study. In addition, APF positive patients showed a worse radiological course (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest APF is a possible marker of poor prognosis in RA.

Martin-Mola E, Balsa A. · Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Paseo de la Castellana 261, Madrid 28046, Spain. · Rheum Dis Clin North Am. · Pubmed #19481004 No free full text.

Abstract: Infection is a frequent complication in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other autoimmune diseases. Since 2000, the spectrum of therapeutic possibilities (ie, biologic agents) for treating RA has expanded rapidly and many safety reports of patients treated with these drugs have been published. In most studies, biologics are associated with an increased incidence of infections with the use of tumor necrosis factor antagonists. Reported risks for developing infection differ among studies. This article provides an overview of which studies the authors consider the most relevant.

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.

Smolen JS, Keystone EC, Emery P, Breedveld FC, Betteridge N, Burmester GR, Dougados M, Ferraccioli G, Jaeger U, Klareskog L, Kvien TK, Martin-Mola E, Pavelka K, Anonymous00088. · Department of Rheumatology, Third Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17068064 No free full text.

Abstract: A large number of experts experienced in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis were involved in formulating a consensus statement on the use of B cell-targeted treatment with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The statement was supported by data from randomised controlled clinical trials and the substantial literature on oncology. The statement underwent three rounds of discussions until its ultimate formulation. It should guide clinicians in the use of this newly approved biological agent in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Martinez A, Fernandez-Arquero M, Balsa A, Rubio A, Alves H, Pascual-Salcedo D, Martin-Mola E, de la Concha EG. · Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11407684 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine whether major histocompatibility complex class I chain-related gene A (MICA) polymorphisms are associated with susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) independently of the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE). METHODS: Fifty-four Spanish families with an affected son or daughter and 211 consecutive RA patients were genotyped for HLA-DRB1, tumor necrosis factor a/b microsatellite alleles, and MICA transmembrane polymorphism. We performed a case-control comparison with the consecutive patients and an independent transmission disequilibrium test with the families. RESULTS: The frequency of the MICA 6.0 allele was significantly reduced, compared with controls, in the group of SE+ patients (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.0005). Additionally, the haplotypes containing this allele were preferentially not transmitted to the affected offspring (9 transmitted of 33; P = 0.007), independent of the presence or absence of an SE either in the same haplotype or in the other haplotype in the progenitor. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the MICA 6.0 allele is an independent marker of protection against RA in the SE+ group of RA patients.