Rheumatoid Arthritis: Simon L

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.

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.

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.

van der Heijde D, Simon L, Smolen J, Strand V, Sharp J, Boers M, Breedveld F, Weisman M, Weinblatt M, Rau R, Lipsky P. · Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11954017 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Bruscas Izu C, Medrano San Ildefonso M, Simon L. · Servicio de Reumatología, Hospital Lapeyronie, Montpellier, Francia. · An Med Interna. · Pubmed #11100535 No free full text.

Abstract: The RS3P syndrome or remitting seronegative symmetrical synovitis with pitting oedema, was described in 1985 by McCarty. The description refers to a rheumatologic set of symptoms with an acute commence, with no erosive lesions, with seronegativity, affecting more frequently to elderly males and showing an excellent prognosis. These characteristics make it possible to difference from the rheumatoid arthritis and from the rheumatic polymyalgia. We present eleven cases which confirm the good prognosis already described, but we suggest the possibility of this syndrome could be a manifestation or the beginning of other possible diseases.

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.