Search

New evidence from 2022 slightly changed some perspectives for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Real-world data on the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs strengthened the importance of tailoring treatment decisions based on patient characteristics. Moreover, the research of response biomarkers to therapy underlined the need for precision medicine and remote care applications showed an innovative outlook that supports a patient-centred approach. New developments in vaccinations led to the release of updated guidelines and to a consistent improvement in the prevention of vaccine-preventable infections. New literature data also reconsidered drug management in RA-associated interstitial lung disease and pregnancy. In this paper, the reviewers aim to present the most relevant studies published during the last year in the field of RA management.

New evidence for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has emerged during the last year. Specifically, updated guidelines on pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of RA have emphasised the necessity of global patient’s care, and have shifted the role of some older drugs, such as glucocorticoids and methotrexate. In addition, the long-term safety of Janus kinase inhibitors was investigated and reinforced. With respect to the coronavirus-19 pandemic, reassuring data on the efficacy and safety of vaccinations in the RA population were acquired, as well as on the potential role of telemedicine in RA management. Machine learning prediction models and biomarkers development have emerged as promising innovations in the area of precision/personalised medicine, appearing to encourage future expansion. In this narrative review, the authors aim to give their specific point of view on the most relevant and potentially impacting novelties published during 2021 and early 2022 in the context of RA management.

Anti-synthetase syndrome (ASSD) is a heterogeneous autoimmune disease characterised by multi-system involvement with a wide variety of manifestations. Validated classification criteria are necessary to improve recognition and prevent misclassification, especially given the lack of reliable and standardised autoantibody testing. We systematically reviewed the literature to analyse proposed ASSD criteria, characteristics, and diagnostic performance. Methods We searched PubMed and Embase databases (01/01/1984 to 06/11/2018) and the ACR and EULAR meeting abstracts (2017-2018). Sensitivities, specificities, positive, negative likelihood ratios and risk of bias were calculated for ASSD criteria and key variables reported in the literature. We performed meta-analysis when appropriate. Results We retrieved 4,358 studies. We found 85 proposed ASSD criteria from a total of 82 studies. All but one study included anti-synthetase autoantibody (ARS) positivity in the ASSD criteria. Most studies required only one ASSD feature plus anti-ARS to define ASSD (n=64, 78%), whereas 16 studies required more than one ASSD variable plus anti-ARS. The only criteria not including anti-ARS positivity required 5 ASSD clinical features. We found limited data and wide variability in the diagnostic performance of each variable and definition proposed in the literature. Given these limitations we only meta-analysed the performance of individual muscle biopsy and clinical variables in diagnosing ASSD, which performed poorly. Conclusion The current ASSD criteria include a variety of serological, clinical, and histological features with wide variability amongst proposed definitions and the performance of these definitions has not been tested. This systematic literature review suggests the need for additional data and consensus-driven classification criteria for ASSD.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has evolved over the years as a result of better understanding of the role of different therapeutic strategies, as well as following an increasing availability of new disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. However, the role of patients in sharing decisions, as well as the rules informing precision medicine or the principles to follow in case of specific comorbidities or extra-articular manifestations are still areas for improvement. Moreover, in 2020, the novel Coronavirus disease-19 outbreak has completely changed many attitudes in terms of assessment and treatment paradigms in most clinical diseases, including RA. In this narrative review, the authors report their specific point of view on the management of RA, based on a critical revision of literature published in 2020, focusing on relevant novelties and future research directions.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has evolved over the years as a result of better understanding of the role of different therapeutic strategies, as well as following an increasing availability of new disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. However, the role of patients in sharing decisions, as well as the rules informing precision medicine or the principles to follow in case of specific comorbidities or extra-articular manifestations are still areas for improvement. Moreover, in 2020, the novel Coronavirus disease-19 outbreak has completely changed many attitudes in terms of assessment and treatment paradigms in most clinical diseases, including RA. In this narrative review, the authors report their specific point of view on the management of RA, based on a critical revision of literature published in 2020, focusing on relevant novelties and future research directions.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management is driven by evidence, and new 2019 EULAR recommendations help in refining the relevant place of different disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treatment schedules. At present, new drugs are in phase of development, mainly Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKis), however, specific treatment strategies seem to count more than individual DMARDs in terms of treatment responses, given the substantial lack of head-to-head comparisons between specific biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs, and with the general perception of a similar efficacy profile across drugs. In this setting, when reliable biomarkers able to predict treatment responses are lacking, treatment decisions are mainly driven by specific clinical or individual factors, given the recognised role of comorbidities, treatment-specific side effects, patients’ preferences, and costs on drug choice. In this narrative review, the authors give their specific point of view on the management of RA, based on a critical revision of the literature published in 2019, focusing on relevant novelties and future research directions.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management is driven by evidence, and new 2019 EULAR recommendations help in refining the relevant place of different disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treatment schedules. At present, new drugs are in phase of development, mainly Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKis), however, specific treatment strategies seem to count more than individual DMARDs in terms of treatment responses, given the substantial lack of head-to-head comparisons between specific biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs, and with the general perception of a similar efficacy profile across drugs. In this setting, when reliable biomarkers able to predict treatment responses are lacking, treatment decisions are mainly driven by specific clinical or individual factors, given the recognised role of comorbidities, treatment-specific side effects, patients’ preferences, and costs on drug choice. In this narrative review, the authors give their specific point of view on the management of RA, based on a critical revision of the literature published in 2019, focusing on relevant novelties and future research directions.

Objective Inflammatory arthritis needs infectious disease screening before starting a biologic agent, however, few data are known about migrant patients, who represent a peculiar population which requires a multidisciplinary approach among international health specialists and should also be considered by health authorities. For this reason, the Italian and Spanish Societies of Rheumatology (SIR and SER) and Tropical Medicine (SIMET and SEMTSI) promoted a multidisciplinary task force in order to produce specific recommendations about screening and advices to be considered in migrant patients with inflammatory arthritis candidate to receive biological therapy, according to their geographical origin. Methods The experts provided a prioritised list of research questions and the eligible spectrum of inflammatory arthritis, biologic drugs and infectious disease were defined in order to perform a systematic literature review. A search was made in Medline, Embase and Cochrane library, updated to March 2015. Ubiquitous infections and HBV, HCV, HIV and tuberculosis that are already considered in national and international recommendations, were not included. The strength of each recommendation was determined. Results The task force members agreed on 7 overarching principles. The risk of reactivation of selected potentially latent infectious disease was addressed in migrants with inflammatory arthritis candidates for biologics was considered and 15 potentially relevant infections were identified. Conclusion Fifteen disease-specific recommendations were formulated on the basis of high level of agreement among the experts panel.

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the 12-month probability of remission in early inflammatory arthritis with a milder treatment based on the 1987 criteria or a more intensive protocol based on the 2010 criteria. Methods Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or undifferentiated arthritis (UA) (2005-2012) were included. Before October 2010, patients fulfilling the 1987 criteria received methotrexate (MTX) and possibly low-dose prednisone, while UA hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (1987-driven cohort). From October 2010, patients fulfilling the 2010 criteria received higher dose MTX and low-dose prednisone, while UA HCQ (2010-driven cohort). Treatment was increased to achieve DAS28 low disease activity. Clinical remission, defined by DAS28, was evaluated at subsequent visits in the whole population. Hazard ratios (HR) adjusted for age, sex, baseline DAS28, symptoms duration, MTX dose and prednisone were calculated by Cox regression. Results 677 patients were included (468 in 1987-driven cohort, 209 in 2010-driven cohort), with no significant differences in age, gender, autoantibodies and pain. The 2010-driven cohort had significantly fewer tender and swollen joints, lower acute phase reactants, DAS28 and HAQ and achieved more frequently remission even when the analysis was adjusted for all confounders (adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.73 (1.34, 2.22)) and limited to per protocol patients (adjusted HR (95%CI) 1.49 (1.11, 2.02). Conclusion Treating patients with early arthritis according to a more intensive protocol leads to higher remission rate. The results of this study support the use of a strategy led by the 2010 criteria with more intensive treatment strategies in the management of early arthritis.

Objectives. To investigate the ability of ultrasonography (US) to detect synovitis in metatarsophalangeal joints (MTP) in patients with suspicion of early arthritis, and to discriminate between diagnoses. Methods. Patients referred to early arthritis clinics for differential diagnosis were enrolled, and clinical and laboratory measures were recorded. Ultrasonography of MTPs was performed searching for synovial hypertrophy (SH), joint effusion (JE) and power Doppler (PD), graded from 0 to 3 on a semi-quantitative scale. Patients were classified according to definite classification criteria, or as undifferentiated arthritis or non-inflammatory pathology. US findings were compared across different diagnoses and diagnostic accuracy was calculated taking clinical diagnosis as reference.Results. Out of 427 patients (71% rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 20% undifferentiated arthritis (UA), 15% spondyloarthritides (SpA), 13% non-inflammatory), 307 (71.9%) showed SH, 120 (25.5%) JE, 77(18.0%) PD. RA patients had median JE, SH and PD scores significantly higher than non-inflammatory and other diseases. Patient with UA and SpA had higher scores of SH and JE compared to non-inflammatory, no significant differences were present among different diagnosis. In RA, SH and JE were more frequently detected in the second MTP, and PD in the fifth. Crystal-related arthritis showed a tendency towards a more frequent involvement of the first MTP. The diagnostic accuracy of single US measures was moderate, but the detection of a PD of 2 or more provided a high specificity for the diagnosis of RA. Conclusions. US can be used as additional information in patients evaluated in an early arthritis setting. High scores of JE, SH and PD, together with the pattern of involvement are suggestive of RA.