Search

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field.

Background: Clinical studies with work participation (WP) as an outcome domain pose particular methodological challenges that hamper interpretation, comparison between studies and meta-analyses.Objectives: To develop Points to Consider (PtC) for design, analysis and reporting of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis that include WP as a primary or secondary outcome domain.Methods: The EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures were followed. A multidisciplinary taskforce with 22 experts including patients with rheumatic diseases, from 10 EULAR countries and Canada, identified methodologic areas of concern. Two systematic literature reviews (SLR) appraised the methodology across these areas. In parallel, two surveys among professional societies and experts outside the taskforce sought for additional methodological areas or existing conducting/reporting recommendations. The taskforce formulated the PtC after presentation of the SLRs and survey results, and discussion. Consensus was obtained through informal voting, with levels of agreement obtained anonymously.Results: Two overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The taskforce recommends to align the work-related study objective to the design, duration, and outcome domains/measurement instruments of the study (PtC: 1-3); to identify contextual factors upfront and account for them in analyses (PtC: 4); to account for interdependence of different work outcome domains and for changes in work status over time (PtC: 5-7); to present results as means as well as proportions of patients reaching predefined meaningful categories (PtC: 8) and to explicitly report volumes of productivity loss when costs are an outcome (PtC:9).Conclusion: Adherence to these EULAR PtC will improve the methodological quality of studies evaluating WP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, musculoskeletal pain management has focused on the use of conventional treatments to relieve pain. However, multi-modal integrative medicine including alternative/complementary treatments is becoming more widely used and integrated into treatment guidelines around the world. The uptake of this approach varies according to country, with generally a higher uptake in developed countries and in females aged more than 40 years. Integral to the concept described here, is that the body has an innate ability to self-heal, which can be optimized by the use of integrative medical strategies. Stress triggers for acute or recurring musculoskeletal pain are diverse and can range from physical to psychological. The mechanism by which the body responds to triggers and initiates the self-healing processes is complex, but five body networks or processes are thought to be integral: the nervous system, microcirculation/vasodilation, immune modulation, muscular relaxation/contraction and psychological balance. Multi-modal integrative medicine approaches include nutritional/dietary modification, postural/muscular training exercises, and cognitive behavioral mind/body techniques. This article will review the self-healing concept and provide plausible scientific evidence where available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences. Patients and Methods: In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0– 100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences. Results: 100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥ 70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively. Conclusion: These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although commonly diagnosed, gout often remains a poorly managed disease. This is partially due to a lack of awareness of the long-term effect of gout among patients and healthcare professionals. Aim: To understand unmet needs for patients and provide insight into achieving better treatment. Design & setting: A quantitative online questionnaire collected from 1100 people with gout from 14 countries within Europe. Method: Patients were recruited to complete an online survey via healthcare professional (HCP) referral, patient associations, or market research panels. Patients were included if they had been diagnosed with gout by a physician. Prior to commencement, patients were made aware that this study was sponsored by Grünenthal. The responses collected were collated and analyses were performed. Results: Patients had an average of 2.9 gout flares within a 12-month period. Although 79% of patients were satisfied with treatment, inadequate gout control was also reported by 71% of patients. Furthermore, 84% experienced moderate-to- severe pain with their most recent flare. Of those who acknowledged treatment dissatisfaction, only 24% discussed other options with their GP. Most patients reported irregular follow-up and serum uric acid (sUA) monitoring. In addition, loss of belief that more can be done was a key barrier for patients. Conclusion: Patients reported severe pain and social burden, coupled with low treatment expectation and lack of awareness of target sUA. Education around knowing and reaching sUA target is needed so that patients can receive and GPs can deliver higher quality management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Acute postoperative pain is experienced by the majority of hospitalized patients undergoing surgical procedures, with many reporting inadequate pain relief and/or high levels of dissatisfaction with their pain management. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ensures patient involvement in acute pain control, a key component for implementing a quality management system. This narrative article overviews the clinical evidence for conventional PCA and briefly discusses new, non-invasive PCA systems, namely the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (FITS).Methods: A Medline literature search ("patient-controlled analgesia" and "acute postoperative pain") was conducted to 1 April 2017; results from the main clinical trials are discussed. Additional literature was identified from the reference lists of cited publications.Results: Moderate to low quality evidence supports opioid-based intravenous PCA as an efficacious alternative to non-patient-controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. However, despite the benefits of PCA, conventional intravenous PCA is limited by system-, drug- and human-related issues. The non-invasive SSTS and FITS have demonstrated good efficacy and safety in placebo- and intravenous morphine PCA-controlled trials, and are associated with high patient/healthcare practitioner satisfaction/ease of care ratings and offer early patient mobilization.Conclusions: Evidence-based guidelines for acute postoperative pain management support the use of multimodal regimens in many situations. As effective and safe alternatives to conventional PCA, and with the added benefits of being non-invasive, easy to use and allowing early patient mobilization, the newer PCA systems may complement multimodal approaches, or potentially replace certain regimens, in hospitalized patients with acute postoperative pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A European League Against Rheumatism-American College of Rheumatology working group consisting of practising and academic rheumatologists, a rheumatology researcher and a patient representative created a succinct general statement describing rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in adults and children in language that can be used in conversations with the lay public, media, healthcare providers and other stakeholders. Based on the literature review, several elements were deemed important for inclusion in the description of RMDs. First, RMDs encompass many different diseases that can affect individuals at any age, including children. Second, there are various pathophysiological pathways underlying different RMDs. Third, the impact of RMDs on individuals and society should be emphasised. The working group agreed that the language should be comprehensible to the lay public. Thus, the following description of RMDs has been developed: 'Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are a diverse group of diseases that commonly affect the joints, but can affect any organ of the body. There are more than 200 different RMDs, affecting both children and adults. They are usually caused by problems of the immune system, inflammation, infections or gradual deterioration of joints, muscles and bones. Many of these diseases are long term and worsen over time. They are typically painful and limit function. In severe cases, RMDs can result in significant disability, having a major impact on both quality of life and life expectancy.' This description can be used by rheumatology groups, researchers and those who work in advocacy and education related to RMDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the introduction of evidence-based recommendations for postoperative pain management (POPM), the consensus is that pain control remains suboptimal. Barriers to achieving patient-satisfactory analgesia include deficient knowledge regarding POPM among staff, lack of instructions, insufficient pain assessments and sub-optimal treatment. Effective monitoring of POPM is essential to enable policy makers and healthcare providers to improve the quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) are quantitative measures of clinical practice that can monitor, evaluate and guide the quality of care provided to patients. QIs can be used to assess various aspects relating to the care process and they have proven useful in improving health outcomes in diseases such as myocardial infarction. In this commentary we critically analyze the evidence regarding the use of QIs in acute POPM based upon the experience of pain specialists from Europe and the USA who are members of the Change Pain Advisory Board. We also undertook a literature review to see what has been published on QIs in acute pain with the goal of assessing which QIs have been developed and used, and which ones have been successful/unsuccessful. In the hospital sector the development and implementation of QIs is complex. The nature of POPM requires a highly trained, multidisciplinary team and it is at this level that major improvements can be made. Greater involvement of patients regarding pain management is also seen as a priority area for improving clinical outcomes. Changes in structure and processes to deliver high-level quality care need to be regularly audited to ensure translation into better outcomes. QIs can help drive this process by providing an indicator of current levels of performance. In addition, outcomes QIs can be used to benchmark levels of performance between different healthcare providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD)strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed.These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatologysocieties and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter to the editor acknowledges Hirst's concern about the relation between medical charities and pharmaceutical companies, and addresses some inaccuracies in her letter regarding the 2002 Arthritis Care information campaign to promote the government's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on cyclooxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors.

Introduction: Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health., Methods: Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1-2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions., Results: Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening., Conclusion: An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AMB reports grants from the Bone and Joint Decade Foundation during the conduct of the study. CHS reports grants from Curtin University during the conduct of the study. HS reports grants from the Bone and Joint Decade Foundation during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AbbVie outside the submitted work. JEJ reports personal fees from Curtin University during the conduct of the study. SP has nothing to disclose. JJY reports grants from the Danish Foundation for Chiropractic Research and Post-graduate Education, grants from Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, grants from Ontario Chiropractic Association, grants from National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company Foundation, grants from the University of Southern Denmark Faculty Scholarship outside the submitted work. SS has nothing to disclose. DK-G has nothing to disclose. SMishrra reports grants from Curtin University during the conduct of the study. KEA reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from UCB, personal fees from FAN, personal fees from Astellas pharma, personal fees from Chugai pharma outside the submitted work. NA has nothing to disclose. JB has nothing to disclose. NB reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Grunenthal, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Global Alliance for Patient Access outside the submitted work. FMB has nothing to disclose. RB reports personal fees from World Federation of Chiropractic outside the submitted work. DD has nothing to disclose. KED has nothing to disclose. LF has nothing to disclose. HEF has nothing to disclose. FG has nothing to disclose. SH has nothing to disclose. SAH has nothing to disclose. BH has nothing to disclose. AJ has nothing to disclose. MJ has nothing to disclose. AAK has nothing to disclose. JL has nothing to disclose. SMatsuda has nothing to disclose. AM reports grants, non-financial support and other from Merck KGaA; grants, non-financial support and other from Kolon TissueGene; grants, non-financial support and other from Merck KGaA; grants from Pfizer; grants from European Commission-Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI); grants from European Union Structural Funds administered by the Research Council of Lithuania (Lietuvos mokslo taryba); grants from European Union Structural Funds administered by the Research Council of Lithuania (Lietuvos mokslo taryba); grants from European Commission-Framework 7 (FP7-HEALTH); grants from European Commission-Framework 7 (FP7-PEOPLE) Marie Skłodowska-Curie Program; personal fees from Galapagos-Servier; personal fees from Image Analysis Group (IAG); personal fees, non-financial support and other from Artialis SA; personal fees and other from Aché (Aché Laboratórios Farmacêuticos); personal fees and other from Abbvie; personal fees from Guidepoint Global,; personal fees from Alphasights; personal fees from Science Branding Communications; personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer Consumer Healthcare; non-financial support from GSK Consumer Healthcare; personal fees and other from Flexion Therapeutics; personal fees from Pacira Biosciences; other from Genacol; personal fees, non-financial support and other from Sterifarma; other from Henry Stewart Talks; non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); grants from Versus Arthritis (Arthritis Research UK); personal fees and other from Korean Society for Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Repair; personal fees from American College of Rheumatology; personal fees and other from Spanish Society of Rheumatology; personal fees and other from Heilongjiang Rheumatology Association; personal fees and other from Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University; non-financial support and other from International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society (ICRS); non-financial support and other from Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI); non-financial support from AxDev International; other from Gordian Biotechnology; other from UNITY Biotechnology; personal fees and other from Bioiberica; other from The Dutch Arthritis Society (ReumaNederland); other from Kolon Life Science; personal fees from SANOFI; personal fees from European Commission; other from BRASIT/BRASOS, Brazil; other from GEOS, Brazil; other from European Orthopaedic Research Society (EORS); other from Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (SBR); other from Society for Osteoarthritis Research (SOAR), India; other from MCI Group, Geneva outside the submitted work. LMwaniki has nothing to disclose. MCN has nothing to disclose. MP has nothing to disclose. FJJR has nothing to disclose. ERS reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from BMS; grants from Glaxo; grants and personal fees from Janssen; personal fees from Lilly; grants and personal fees from Novartis; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer; grants and personal fees from Roche; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from UCB outside the submitted work. HT reports having authored two books: Life Beyond the Carpal Tunnel (2007) and Holistic Pain Relief (2014). JW has nothing to disclose. DW has nothing to disclose. ADW has nothing to disclose. LMarch reports personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Abbvie, grants from Janssen outside the submitted work. LMarch is an executive member of OMERACT which receives funding from 30 different companies., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Despite availability of efficacious treatments, unmet needs still exist, preventing optimal and comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evolving the management of RA (eRA) is a European-wide educational initiative aiming to support improved patient care through practical and educational tools addressing specific unmet needs., Methods: A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (17 members, 12 countries) identified unmet needs within the management of RA and prioritised those with the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Practical educational tools addressing priority needs were then developed for dissemination and implementation by the rheumatology community across Europe., Results: Five areas of priority need were identified: increasing early recognition of RA and treatment initiation; treating RA to target; optimal, holistic approach to selection of treatment strategy, including shared decision-making; improving identification and management of comorbidities; and non-pharmacological patient management. A suite of 14 eRA tools included educational slides, best-practice guidance, self‑assessment questionnaires, clinical checklists, a multidisciplinary team training exercise, an interactive patient infographic, and case scenarios. By April 2020, rheumatology professionals in 17 countries had been actively engaged in the eRA programme; in 11 countries, eRA tools were selected by national leaders in rheumatology and translated for local dissemination. A web platform, with country-specific pages, was developed to support access to the translated tools (https://www.evolvingthemanagementofra.com/)., Conclusions: The eRA programme supports comprehensive management of RA across Europe through development and dissemination of practical educational tools. The eRA tools address priority needs and are available free of charge to the rheumatology community.

The key question addressed in this Chapter is "What do people need?", with "people" here meaning those who live with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal disease. The word "patient" is avoided at this point as not all of the problems or solutions identified are medical in nature. Many are personal, societal and/or environmental. The lead authors are all people who not only live with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal disease, but who are experienced "patient representatives". Therefore, their insights here stem from a combination of personal and collective experiences and views. Although from different continents, the authors identify a range of common barriers to social participation and optimum management of these conditions, such as late diagnosis, stigma and access to care. However, several solutions are common across these regions too, such as the need for supported self-management and greater public awareness of the impact of these diseases., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disorder with a global prevalence of approximately 0.5-1%. Patients with RA are at an increased risk of developing comorbidities (eg, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes and depression). Despite this, there are limited recommendations for the management and implementation of associated comorbidities. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions in the care of RA and associated comorbidities., Methods: A combination of primary research (180+ interviews with specialists across 12 European rheumatology centres) and secondary research (literature review of existing publications and guidelines/recommendations) were used to identify challenges in management and corresponding good practice interventions. Findings were prioritised and reviewed by a group of 18 rheumatology experts including rheumatologists, comorbidity experts, a patient representative and a highly specialised nurse., Results: Challenges throughout the patient pathway (including delays in diagnosis and referral, shortage of rheumatologists, limited awareness of primary care professionals) and 18 good practice interventions were identified in the study. The expert group segmented and prioritised interventions according to three distinct stages of the disease: (1) suspected RA, (2) recent diagnosis of RA and (3) established RA. Examples of good practice interventions included enabling self-management (self-monitoring and disease management support, for example, lifestyle adaptations); early arthritis clinic; rapid access to care (online referral, triage, ultrasound-guided diagnosis); dedicated comorbidity specialists; enhanced communication with primary care (hotline, education sessions); and integrating patient registries into daily clinical practice., Conclusion: Learning from implementation of good practice interventions in centres across Europe provides an opportunity to more widely improved care for patients with RA and associated comorbidities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TKK has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Egis, Eli Lilly, Hikma, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Oktal, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB and received research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. AB has received Grant/research support, fees for consultancies or as a speaker for Abbvie, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, Nordic, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sandoz, Lilly, UCB and Roche. NB has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, GSK, Heart Vlavle Voice, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme and Sanofi Regeron. MHB has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and Sanofi, and research funding to University of Leeds from Pfizer, Roche and UCB. PD has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Celltrion, Lilly and Sanofi Genzyme. EGF has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and UCB. CG has received fees for consulting from Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, Lilly and Ab2 Bio Ltd. RG has received fees for speaking from Sanofi Genzyme. IG-B has received fees for consulting from Amgen, Akcea, Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron. FvdH has received fees for consulting from AbbVie, Biogen, Celltron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer and Munidpharma. AK has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from UCB, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Abbvie, Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi. LK has received research grants to Karolinska Institutet from Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, GSK and UCB. MØ has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merk, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. KP has received fees for speaking and/or consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Egis, MSD and UCB. JP-P has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Tecnimede. AGS has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Novartis, Sanofi and Bayer and have an unrestricted research collaboration with Eli Lilly which includes transfer of funds to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from Eli Lilly. MS has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, speakers fee/consultancy from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Mundipharma, Sandoz and Roche. MD has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB and his department has received research grants from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

A European League Against Rheumatism-American College of Rheumatology working group consisting of practicing and academic rheumatologists, a rheumatology researcher, and a patient representative created a succinct general statement describing rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in adults and children in language that can be used in conversations with the lay public, media, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders. Based on the literature review, several elements were deemed important for inclusion in the description of RMDs. First, RMDs encompass many different diseases that can affect individuals at any age, including children. Second, there are various pathophysiological pathways underlying different RMDs. Third, the impact of RMDs on individuals and society should be emphasized. The working group agreed that the language should be comprehensible to the lay public. Thus, the following description of RMDs has been developed: "Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are a diverse group of diseases that commonly affect the joints, but can affect any organ of the body. There are more than 200 different RMDs, affecting both children and adults. They are usually caused by problems of the immune system, inflammation, infections, or gradual deterioration of joints, muscles, and bones. Many of these diseases are long term and worsen over time. They are typically painful and limit function. In severe cases, RMDs can result in significant disability, having a major impact on both quality of life and life expectancy." This description can be used by rheumatology groups, researchers, and those who work in advocacy and education related to RMDs., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)