Rheumatoid Arthritis: Pham T

Pham T, Fautrel B, Gottenberg JE, Goupille P, Hachulla E, Masson C, Morel J, Mouthon L, Saraux A, Schaeverbeke T, Wendling D, Mariette X, Sibilia, Anonymous00011. · No affiliation provided · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #18708020 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

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.

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.

Pham T. · Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital de la Conception, Marseille, France. · Presse Med. · Pubmed #12518069 No free full text.

Abstract: EFFICACY OF ANALGESICS AND NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials demonstrates that common analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) provide short-term pain relief for rheumatism-related pain. There have however been few controlled randomized studies on the efficacy of analgesics against rheumatism-related pain. On the contrary, the numerous trials conducted with NSAID show a wide variety of doses for a wide range of products. Finally, trials comparing NSAID with analgesics are scarce and heterogeneous. The comparative efficacy of these two types of compounds remains difficult to interpret. CHOICE CRITERIA: The criteria used to choose an analgesic or a NSAID are not based solely on their efficacy, but also on tolerance, patient status and cost. RECOMMENDATIONS: The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the American Pain Society recommend acetaminophen for first intention treatment, and NSAID (e.g. coxibs) for second intention treatment of patient with rheumatism-related pain.

Daumen-Legré V, Lafforgue P, Champsaur P, Chagnaud C, Pham T, Kasbarian M, Acquaviva PC. · Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital La Timone, Marseille, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10090183 No free full text.

Abstract: Nontraumatic anteroposterior atlantoaxial subluxation (AAS) has been described in several rheumatic or inherited disorders, especially rheumatoid arthritis and to a lesser extent the inflammatory spondyloarthropathies. We describe AAS secondary to osteoarthritis (OA) of the cervical spine in a 76-year-old man and a 73-year-old woman with severe cervical OA, symptomatic C1-C2 facet joints, and signs of generalized OA. Only 6 similar cases exist in the literature. OA should be added to the causes of AAS, and conversely AAS should be assessed in cases with severe OA of the upper cervical spine.

Pham T, Claudepierre P, Constantin A, Fautrel B, Gossec L, Gottenberg JE, Goupille P, Hachulla E, Masson C, Morel J, Saraux A, Schaeverbeke T, Wendling D, Mariette X, Sibilia J. · Service de Rhumatologie, CHU Conception, Marseille, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #19560051 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To elaborate a how-to-use abatacept material intended to help physicians in the management of patients with inflammatory diseases treated with this drug in routine practice. METHODS: 1) Selection of the relevant domains by a rheumatologists' panel; 2) Search for published evidence in each domain; 3) Elaboration of the clinical tool guide with a 3-level gradation of evidence (evidence-based medicine EBM, official recommendations and expert's opinion). The experts were 11 academic rheumatologists with a large experience in prescribing abatacept and in managing rheumatoid arthritis. They were all members of the CRI (Club Rhumatismes et Inflammation), a section of the French Rheumatology Society dedicated to the inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Each fact sheet was reviewed by two other experts; 4) Regular updating based on medical literature and postmarketing surveillance data. RESULTS: Four domains were considered relevant: abatacept contraindications, management of side effects or associated diseases appearing during abatacept treatment, management of "practical situations" such as surgery or pregnancy, physician and patient information. After the literature analysis and discussion during an experts' meeting, a consensus was reached on: a pre-treatment checklist aimed at searching abatacept contraindications; a what-to-do document when facing side effects or associated diseases (autoimmune pathology, bacterial or viral infections, cardiovascular diseases, intolerance to abatacept, solid or haematological malignancy) or "practical situations" (surgery, pregnancy, vaccination, travel, drug-drug interactions); an example of standard information letter to be addressed to the attending physician (rheumatologist and general practitioner); an example of standard information letter to be addressed to the patient. CONCLUSION: Based on both an EBM approach and an expert's opinion approach, this abatacept clinical tool guide should provide assistance to all physicians attending patients treated with abatacept. For a better implementation in clinical practice, this tool guide will be available online at www.cri-net.com and regularly updated.

Fautrel B, Constantin A, Morel J, Vittecoq O, Cantagrel A, Combe B, Dougados M, Le Loët X, Mariette X, Pham T, Puéchal X, Sibilia J, Soubrier M, Ravaud P, Anonymous00369. · Service de Rhumatologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, UFR de Médecine, Université Pierre et Marie-Curie-Paris-VI, 83, Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75651 Paris cedex 13, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #16798046 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop recommendations for TNFalpha-antagonist therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) seen in everyday practice, under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology. METHOD: We used the methods recommended by the French Agency for Healthcare Accreditation and Evaluation, the AGREE collaboration, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR). The recommendations focus on patient selection, monitoring, and treatment adjustments. RESULTS: Criteria for selecting patients eligible for TNFalpha-antagonist treatment of RA include: 1) a definitive diagnosis of RA; 2) disease activity for longer than 1 month, including presence of objective signs of inflammation; or radiographic progression; 3) previous failure of methotrexate in the highest tolerated dosage or of another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with contraindications to methotrexate; 4) absence of contraindications to TNFalpha-antagonist therapy. When starting TNFalpha-antagonist therapy 1) a thorough baseline evaluation should be conducted; 2) any of the three available agents can be used, as no differences in efficacy have been identified in patient populations; 3) concomitant methotrexate therapy is recommended regardless of the TNFalpha antagonist used; and 4) patients should receive standardized follow-up at regular intervals. Treatment adjustments should be based on the following: 1) the treatment objective is achievement of a EULAR response; 2) when such a response is not achieved, the dosage or dosing interval can be changed, or the patient can be switched to another TNFalpha antagonist; 3) in patients who experience intolerance to a TNFalpha antagonist, another TNFalpha antagonist may be tried, depending on the nature of the adverse event; 4) occurrence of a remission should lead to a reduction in symptomatic medications, most notably glucocorticoids where used; in the event of a prolonged remission, either the TNFalpha antagonist or the concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug may be reduced. CONCLUSION: These recommendations are intended to help physicians use TNFalpha antagonists in their everyday practice with RA patients. They do not constitute regulations.

Bettembourg-Brault I, Gossec L, Pham T, Gottenberg JE, Damiano J, Dougados M. · Rheumatology B Department, Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, Rene Descartes University, Paris, France. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16762152 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment discontinuation rate of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in comparison with the discontinuation of other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), in daily practice, in a single center and during the same period of time. METHODS: Study design: 3-year, retrospective, monocenter. Patients: RA patients for whom leflunomide or another DMARD was initiated between 1998 and 2001 (several DMARDs could be initiated for a given patient during this period). Collected data: For each patient, demographic and disease data. For each treatment course, date of initiation, if relevant date of discontinuation and reason for discontinuation. Analysis: Percentage of patients discontinuing treatment over time (life table method; Kaplan-Meier), comparison between leflunomide and the "any other DMARD" or methotrexate groups using the Log-Rank test. RESULTS: During the study period, 515 DMARDs were initiated in 285 patients. Leflunomide was initiated in 161 patients who were older and had a longer disease duration than the other treated patients (59 +/- 13 years and 14 +/- 9 years versus 54 +/- 15 years and 11 +/- 10 years in the leflunomide group and other DMARDs group respectively). Discontinuation rate of leflunomide after 1 year was 56.7%, mainly because of adverse drug reactions (41.6%). The discontinuation rate whatever the reason and for toxicity was higher for leflunomide than for other DMARDs studied. However discontinuation for inefficacy was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study conducted in conditions of daily practice when leflunomide was first available suggests a higher discontinuation rate of leflunomide because of adverse events when compared to other DMARDs.

Pham T, Gossec L, Constantin A, Pavy S, Bruckert E, Cantagrel A, Combe B, Flipo RM, Goupille P, Le Loët X, Mariette X, Puéchal X, Schaeverbeke T, Sibilia J, Tebib J, Wendling D, Dougados M. · Service de rhumatologie, CHU de la Conception, Marseille, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #16690341 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of cardiovascular risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using the evidence-based approach and expert opinion. METHODS: Recommendations were developed using the evidence-based approach and expert opinion: A scientific committee used a Delphi procedure to select five questions, which formed the basis for developing the recommendations; Evidence providing answers to the five questions was sought in the literature; Based on this evidence, recommendations were developed by a panel of experts. RESULTS: The recommendations were as follows: 1) In patients with RA, attention should be given to the risk of cardiovascular disease, which is responsible for an excess burden of morbidity and mortality; 2) It must be recognized that RA may be an independent cardiovascular risk factor. Persistent inflammation is an additional risk factor; 3) The cardiovascular risk should be evaluated, and modifiable risk factors should be corrected; 4) In patients with RA requiring glucocorticoid therapy, the need for cardiovascular risk minimization is among the reasons that mandate the use of the minimal effective dose; 5) It should be recognized that methotrexate may protect against cardiovascular mortality in patients with RA; 6) It should be recognized that TNFalpha antagonists remain contraindicated in patients with RA and severe heart failure. TNFalpha antagonists do not seem to worsen moderate heart failure and may protect against cardiovascular mortality; 7) AFSSAPS recommendations about LDL-cholesterol objectives should be followed, with active RA being counted as a cardiovascular risk factor; 8) In patients with RA, statin therapy should be considered only when cholesterol levels are elevated despite appropriate dietary treatment; 9) RA per se does not indicate aspirin for primary prevention. When aspirin is used for secondary prevention, it should be recognized that concomitant treatment with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may decrease the antiplatelet effects and increase the gastrointestinal side effects of aspirin therapy.

Gossec L, Pavy S, Pham T, Constantin A, Poiraudeau S, Combe B, Flipo RM, Goupille P, Le Loët X, Mariette X, Puéchal X, Wendling D, Schaeverbeke T, Sibilia J, Tebib J, Cantagrel A, Dougados M. · Service de rhumatologie B, CHU de Cochin, 27, rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #16626995 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of nonpharmacological treatments in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using the evidence-based approach and expert opinion. METHODS: A scientific committee used a Delphi prioritization procedure to select five questions. Evidence providing answers to the five questions was sought in the literature and presented to a panel of rheumatologists. The panel developed five detailed recommendations, filling gaps in evidence with their expert opinion. The strength of each recommendation was determined. RESULTS: Of the 565 publications retrieved by the literature review, 198 were included in the analysis. The five recommendations on nonpharmacological treatments for early RA were validated by a final vote among all participants. The recommendations are as follows: (1) physicians may decide to provide joint protection education to patients with potentially severe early RA, with the knowledge that structured joint protection programs have not been found effective; (2) physical exercise and sports can be recommended to patients with early RA; muscle strength exercises are advisable; (3) in patients with early RA, metatarsal pain and/or foot alignment abnormalities should be looked for regularly, and appropriate insoles should be prescribed if needed; (4) dietary measures and nutritional supplements are not indicated as part of the treatment of early RA; (5) elimination diets, particularly those with low intakes of dairy products, should be discouraged in patients with early RA. CONCLUSION: These recommendations should help to improve practice uniformity and, ultimately, to improve the management of RA.

Pavy S, Constantin A, Pham T, Gossec L, Maillefert JF, Cantagrel A, Combe B, Flipo RM, Goupille P, Le Loët X, Mariette X, Puéchal X, Schaeverbeke T, Sibilia J, Tebib J, Wendling D, Dougados M. · Service de rhumatologie A, CHU Cochin, 27, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #16626993 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using the evidence-based approach and expert opinion. METHODS: A scientific committee used a Delphi procedure to select five questions, which formed the basis for developing recommendations. Evidence providing answers to the five questions was sought in the Cochrane databases, PubMed, and proceedings of meetings of the French Society for Rheumatology, European League Against Rheumatism, and American College of Rheumatology. Using this evidence, a group of rheumatologists developed and validated the recommendations. For each recommendation, the level of evidence and the extent of agreement among experts were specified. RESULTS: The recommendations were as follows: 1: The starting dosage for methotrexate in patients with RA should not be less than 10 mg/week and should be determined based on disease severity and patient-related factors; 2: When a patient with RA shows an inadequate response to methotrexate, the dosage should be increased at intervals of 6 weeks, up to 20 mg/week, according to tolerance and patient-related factors; 3: When starting methotrexate treatment in a patient with RA, preference should be given to the oral route. A switch to the intramuscular or subcutaneous route should be considered in patients with poor compliance, inadequate effectiveness, or gastrointestinal side effects; 4: At present, there is no evidence indicating that a change in methotrexate dosage is in order when a TNF antagonist is given concomitantly; 5: The investigations that are mandatory before starting methotrexate therapy in a patient with RA consist of a full blood cell count, serum transaminase levels, serum creatinine with computation of creatinine clearance, and a chest radiograph. In addition, serological tests for the hepatitis viruses B and C and a serum albumin assay are recommended. In patients with a history of respiratory disease or current respiratory symptoms, lung function tests with determination of the diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide are recommended; 6: Investigations that are mandatory for monitoring methotrexate therapy in patients with RA consist of full blood cell counts and serum transaminase and creatinine assays. These tests should be obtained at least once a month for the first 3 months then every 4-12 weeks; 7: Folate supplementation can be given routinely to patients treated with methotrexate for RA. In practice, a minimal dosage of 5 mg of folic acid once a week, at a distance from the methotrexate dose, is appropriate; 8: In the event of respiratory symptoms possibly related to methotrexate toxicity, the drug must be stopped and symptom severity evaluated. Should evidence of serious disease be found, the patient should be admitted immediately or advice from a pulmonologist should be obtained immediately. CONCLUSION: Recommendations about methotrexate therapy for RA were developed. These recommendations should help to improve practice uniformity and, ultimately, to improve the management of RA.

Gossec L, Fautrel B, Pham T, Combe B, Flipo RM, Goupille P, Le Loet X, Mariette X, Puéchal X, Wendling D, Schaeverbeke T, Sibilia J, Sany J, Dougados M. · Rheumatology Department, Cochin Teaching Hospital, Paris, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #15850994 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop French evidence-based recommendations for the structural evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in everyday practice. METHODS: A scientific committee selected 10 questions using the Delphi consensus procedure. Evidence-based responses to each question were sought by searching the PubMed and Ovid databases and the abstract databases for the 2002, 2003, and 2004 annual meetings of the French Society for Rheumatology, the EULAR, and the American College of Rheumatology. The following indexing terms were used: rheumatoid arthritis, arthritis, patient, diagnostic imaging, radiography, joint, erosion, and joint space width. All articles published in French or English prior to May 2004 were identified. The evidence from these articles was reported to a panel of 77 rheumatologists working in hospital or office practice. The panel developed detailed recommendations, filling gaps in evidence with their expert opinion. The strength of each recommendation was determined. RESULTS: The 10 questions probed the structural evaluation of RA by plain radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasonography, both for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. The literature search retrieved 673 publications, of which 166 were selected and reviewed. The panel developed 10 recommendations, one for each question, which were accepted by consensus. CONCLUSION: Recommendations relative to the diagnosis or monitoring of structural involvement in patients with RA in everyday practice were developed. They should help to improve practice uniformity and, ultimately, to improve the management of RA.

Pham T, Gossec L, Fautrel B, 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, CHU de la Conception, Marseille, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #15850993 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop recommendations for the physical and laboratory-test follow-up 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 selected 7-10 questions using the Delphi consensus procedure. Evidence-based responses to each question were sought in the literature and were then used by a panel to develop recommendations. To fill in gaps in knowledge from the literature, the panelists relied on their personal opinion. RESULTS: The seven questions dealt with the physical and laboratory-test follow-up of RA and the factors predicting disease severity. The literature review identified 799 articles whose title and abstract suggested relevance to the study. Elimination of articles that provided no data on the study topic left 128 original articles. The panel developed seven recommendations, one for each question, which were accepted by consensus. CONCLUSION: Recommendations about the physical and laboratory-test follow-up of patients with RA seen in everyday practice were developed. Because they constitute an objective foundation built by consensus among experts, should improve the uniformity and quality of care provided to RA patients in everyday practice.

Gossec L, Bettembourg-Brault I, Pham T, Dougados M. · Service de Rhumatologie B, Université René Descartes, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Cochin, Paris, France. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15301244 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine if the presence of HLA-DR disease-associated epitopes predicts the need for total joint arthroplasty or joint fusion in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Tertiary-referral, monocenter study. Three hundred RA patients (1987 ACR criteria) were retrospectively evaluated; outcome measure was recourse to total joint arthroplasty, joint fusion or bone resection. HLA-DR1 and DR4 were considered as the disease-associated epitopes (subtypes were not available for analysis). Analysis was performed using the lifetable method (Kaplan-Meyer technique). RESULTS: Of the 300 patients included, 78% were women, mean age: 56+/-14 years, mean RA follow-up: 12+/-9 years. Phenotyping: 73% of patients carried one (52%) or two (21%) disease-associated epitopes. Surgery was performed on 24% of the patients during follow-up. The most frequent surgery was total hip arthroplasty (13% of patients). According to lifetable analysis, 13% of patients had surgery (total joint arthroplasty or joint fusion) after 10 years of follow-up, 34% after 20 years. years of follow-up, There was no statistically significant difference in recourse to surgery according to absence or presence (single or double-dose) of disease-associated epitopes. Similar results were observed if the event was the second surgical procedure on a given patient. CONCLUSION: This study failed to demonstrate a relation between HLA phenotyping and the severity of RA defined by the requirement for surgery.

Goupille P, Pham T, Sibilia J, Mariette X. · No affiliation provided · Semin Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #17570470 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Leydet-Quilici H, Luc M, Armingeat T, Pham T, Lafforgue P. · No affiliation provided · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #17379563 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.