Search

Objectives To assess the impact of 'patient's minus evaluator's global assessment of disease activity' (ΔPEG) at treatment initiation on retention and remission rates of TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients across Europe. Methods Real-life data from PsA and axSpA patients starting their first TNFi from 11 countries in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network were pooled. Retention rates were compared by Kaplan–Meier analyses with log-rank test and by Cox regression, and remission rates by χ2 test and by logistic regression across quartiles of baseline ΔPEG, separately in female and male PsA and axSpA patients. Results We included 14 868 spondyloarthritis (5855 PsA, 9013 axSpA) patients. Baseline ΔPEG was negatively associated with 6/12/24-months' TNFi retention rates in female and male PsA and axSpA patients (P  <0.001), with 6/12/24-months' BASDAI < 2 (P  ≤0.002) and ASDAS < 1.3 (P  ≤0.005) in axSpA patients, and with DAS28CRP(4)<2.6 (P  ≤0.04) and DAPSA28 ≤ 4 (P  ≤0.01), but not DAS28CRP(3)<2.6 (P  ≥0.13) in PsA patients, with few exceptions on remission rates. Retention and remission rates were overall lower in female than male patients. Conclusion High baseline patient's compared with evaluator's global assessment was associated with lower 6/12/24-months' remission as well as retention rates of first TNFi in both PsA and axSpA patients. These results highlight the importance of discordance between patient's and evaluator's perspective on disease outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate TNF inhibitor (TNFi) retention and response rates in European biologic-naïve patients with PsA. Methods Prospectively collected data on PsA patients in routine care from 12 European registries were pooled. Heterogeneity in baseline characteristics between registries were explored (analysis of variance and pairwise comparison). Retention rates (Kaplan–Meier), clinical remission [28-joint count DAS (DAS28) <2.6; 28 joint Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis ⩽4] and ACR criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20)/ACR50/ACR70 were calculated, including LUNDEX adjustment. Results Overall, 14 261 patients with PsA initiated a first TNFi. Considerable heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between registries was observed. The median 12-month retention rate (95% CI) was 77% (76, 78%), ranging from 68 to 90% across registries. Overall, DAS28/28 joint Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis remission rates at 6 months were 56%/27% (LUNDEX: 45%/22%). Six-month ACR20/50/70 responses were 53%/38%/22%, respectively. In patients initiating a first TNFi after 2009 with registered fulfilment of ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria (n = 1980) or registered one or more swollen joint at baseline (n = 5803), the retention rates and response rates were similar to those found overall. Conclusion Approximately half of >14 000 patients with PsA who initiated first TNFi treatment in routine care were in DAS28 remission after 6 months, and three-quarters were still on the drug after 1 year. Considerable heterogeneity in baseline characteristics and outcomes across registries was observed. The feasibility of creating a large European database of PsA patients treated in routine care was demonstrated, offering unique opportunities for research with real-world data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Methods: According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review was followed by a consensus meeting to develop this update involving 28 international taskforce members in May 2019. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined.Results: The updated recommendations comprise 6 overarching principles and 12 recommendations. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA and diversity of both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations; the need for collaborative management and shared decision-making is highlighted. The recommendations provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local glucocorticoid injections are proposed as initial therapy; for patients with arthritis and poor prognostic factors, such as polyarthritis or monoarthritis/oligoarthritis accompanied by factors such as dactylitis or joint damage, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17A or IL-12/23 should be initiated, taking into account skin involvement if relevant. If axial disease predominates, a TNF inhibitor or IL-17A inhibitor should be started as first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is addressed primarily after bDMARD failure. Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition is proposed for patients in whom these other drugs are inappropriate, generally in the context of mild disease. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are addressed.Conclusion: These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological management of PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patient-physician discordance in global assessment of disease activity concerns one-third of patients, but what does it reflect? We aimed to assess patient-physician discordance in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and patient-reported domains of health (physical and psychological) associated with discordance.Methods: We analyzed the PsAID (Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease), a cross-sectional, multicenter European study of patients with PsA according to expert opinion. Patient global assessment (PGA) and physician global assessment (PhGA) were rated on a 0-10 numeric rating scale. Discordance was defined as the difference (PGA-PhGA) and as the absolute difference |PGA-PhGA| ≥3 points. Determinants of PGA-PhGA were assessed by a stepwise multivariate linear regression among 12 physical and psychological aspects of impact: pain, skin problems, fatigue, ability to work/leisure, functional incapacity, feeling of discomfort, sleep disturbance, anxiety/fear, coping, embarrassment/shame, social participation, and depressive affects.Results: In 460 patients (mean ± SD age 50.6 ± 12.9 years, 52.2% female, mean ± SD disease duration 9.5 ± 9.5 years, mean ± SD Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis score 30.8 ± 32.4, and 40.4% undergoing treatment with biologic agents), the mean ± SD PGA was higher than the mean PhGA, with a mean absolute difference of 1.9 ± 1.8 points. Discordance defined by |PGA-PhGA| ≥3 of 10 concerned 134 patients (29.1%), and 115 patients (85.8% of the patients with discordance) had PGA>PhGA. Higher fatigue (β = 0.14), lower self-perceived coping (β = 0.23), and impaired social participation (β = 0.16) were independently associated with a higher difference (PGA-PhGA).Conclusion: Discordance concerned 29.1% of these patient/physician dyads, mainly by PGA>PhGA. Factors associated with discordance were psychological rather than physical domains of health. Discordance was more frequent in patients in remission, indicating more work is needed on the patient perspective regarding disease activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the link between a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and patient-perceived impact in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of unselected patients with definite RA or PsA. Pain, functional capacity, fatigue, coping, and sleep disturbance were assessed using a numeric rating scale (0-10) and compared between patients in PASS or not (Cohen's effect sizes). The domains of health associated with PASS status were assessed by multivariate forward logistic regression, and PASS thresholds were determined using the 75th percentile method and receiver operating characteristic analyses.Results: Among 977 patients (531 with RA, 446 with PsA), the mean ± SD age was 53.4 ± 13.2 years, mean ± SD disease duration was 11.2 ± 10.0 years, and 637 (65.8%) were women. In all, 595 patients (60.9%) were in PASS; they had lower symptom levels, and all domains of health except sleep disturbance discriminated clearly between patients in PASS or not (effect sizes 0.73-1.45 in RA and 0.82-1.52 in PsA). In multivariate analysis, less pain and better coping were predictive of being in PASS. Odds ratios were: RA pain 0.80 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.67-0.96), PsA pain 0.63 (95% CI 0.52-0.75), RA coping 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.96), and PsA coping 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97). The cutoffs of symptom intensity (range 0-10), corresponding to PASS for the 5 domains of health and the 2 diseases were similar, i.e., approximately 4-5.Conclusion: In RA and PsA, PASS was associated with the 5 domains of health analyzed, and in particular with less pain and better coping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) with and without synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) in a large observational study.Methods: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TCZ who had a baseline visit and information on concomitant sDMARDs were included. According to baseline data, patients were considered as taking TCZ as monotherapy or combination with sDMARDs. Main study outcomes were the change of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and TCZ retention. The prescription of TCZ as monotherapy was analysed using logistic regression. CDAI change was analysed with a mixed-effects model for longitudinal data. TCZ retention was analysed with a stratified extended Cox model.Results: Multiple-adjusted analysis suggests that prescription of TCZ as monotherapy varied according to age, corticosteroid use, country of the registry and year of treatment initiation. The change of disease activity assessed by CDAI as well as the likelihood to be in remission were not significantly different whether TCZ was used as monotherapy or in combination with sDMARDs in a covariate-adjusted analysis. Estimates for unadjusted median TCZ retention were 2.3 years (95% CI 1.8 to 2.7) for monotherapy and 3.7 years (lower 95% CI limit 3.1, upper limit not estimable) for combination therapies. In a covariate-adjusted analysis, TCZ retention was also reduced when used as monotherapy, with an increasing difference between mono and combination therapy over time after 1.5 years (p=0.002).Conclusions: TCZ with or without concomitant sDMARDs resulted in comparable clinical response as assessed by CDAI change, but TCZ retention was shorter under monotherapy of TCZ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases convened a task force of experts in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and clinical trial methodology to comment on the new draft 'Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of RA' released by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Special emphasis was placed by the group on the development of new drugs for the treatment of early RA. In the absence of a clear definition of early RA, it was suggested that clinical investigations in this condition were conducted in disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs naïve patients with no more than 1 year disease duration. The expert group recommended using an appropriate improvement in disease activity (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or Simplified/Clinical Disease Activity Index (SDAI/CDAI) response criteria) or low disease activity (by any score) as primary endpoints, with ACR/European League Against Rheumatism remission as a secondary endpoint. Finally, as compelling evidence showed that the Disease Acrivity Score using 28-joint counts (DAS28) might not provide a reliable definition of remission, or sometimes even low disease activity, the group suggested replacing DAS28 as a measurement instrument to evaluate disease activity in RA clinical trials. Proposed alternatives included SDAI, CDAI and Boolean criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Under the auspices of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), a study group of investigators representing European biologic DMARD (bDMARD) registers was convened. The purpose of this initial assessment was to collect and compare a cross section of patient characteristics and collate information on the availability of potential confounders within these registers. Methods. Baseline characteristics of patients starting their first bDMARD in an arbitrary year (2008) for the treatment of RA, including demographic and disease characteristics, bDMARD drug details and co-morbidities, were collected and compared across 14 European bDMARD registers. Results. A total of 5320 patients were included. Half the registers had restricted recruitment to certain bDMARDs during the study year. All registers‘ collected data on age, gender, disease duration, seropositivity for IgM-RF and 28-joint DAS (DAS28). The mean DAS28 ranged from 4.2 to 6.6 and the mean HAQ from 0.8 to 1.9. Current smoking ranged from 9% to 34%. Nine registers reported co-morbidities with varying prevalence. Conclusion. In addition to demonstrating European-wide collaboration across rheumatology bDMARD registers, this assessment identified differences in prescribing patterns, recruitment strategies and data items collected. These differences need to be considered when applying strategies for combined analysis. The lack of a common data model across Europe calls for further work to harmonize data collection across registers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the effectiveness in collaborating orthopedists and rheumatologists for the optimum management of joint diseases. They recognize the continued research and meetings concerning the management of joint diseases by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT). They suggest further studies that would examine how models of care and treatment could influence patient outcomes.

Objectives: Fatigue is an aspect of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), which is important to patients. The objective was to evaluate magnitude of fatigue in PsA patients and to assess factors that might explain high levels of fatigue.Methods: This was an ancillary analysis of a cross-sectional study in 13 countries of unselected PsA patients who fulfilled the CASPAR criteria. Patient-perceived importance of fatigue was assessed through a priority exercise. Levels of fatigue were assessed by a numeric rating scale (range 0-10). Factors potentially associated with fatigue>5/10: i.e., demographic variables (age, gender, disease duration, education level) and disease related characteristics including joint counts, C-reactive protein, skin psoriasis, axial involvement, enthesitis, dactylitis, structural damage, were assessed by univariate, multivariate logistic and multiple linear regression.Results: In all, 246 patients were analysed: mean±standard deviation age 51.2±13.0years, mean disease duration 9.9±10.1years, mean DAS28 3.5±1.3. Fatigue was ranked second in patient-perceived importance, after pain. Magnitude of fatigue was high: mean fatigue 5.0±3.0. Fatigue>5/10 was well explained (variance explained 73%) by skin psoriasis (odds ratio 4.67 [95% confidence interval 1.05; 20.72]), tender joints (1.30 [1.01; 1.68]) and lower education level (1.09 [1.02; 1.23]). In the multiple linear regression model, fatigue was explained by skin psoriasis, tender joints, enthesitis, female gender, education level.Conclusions: Fatigue is a priority for PsA patients. Fatigue levels were high in these patients and fatigue>5/10 was mainly associated with disease-related factors but also patient-related variables, indicating that the etiology of fatigue in PsA is multifactorial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patient global assessment is a key outcome measure in psoriatic arthritis. To explore the meaning of patient global assessment in psoriatic arthritis by examining associations to domains of health assessed by the Psoriatic arthritis impact of disease score.Methods: Post-hoc analysis of a multicentre cross-sectional study of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Data collection included patient global assessment, specific joint and skin global patient assessments, Psoriatic arthritis impact of disease questions covering physical (including joints and skin), psychological and social impact, and other comparator outcomes. Univariate analyses (Pearson correlation) and multivariate linear regression were performed to explain patient global assessment and the specific joint and skin global patient assessments.Results: Among 223 patients (mean age: 51.0 [standard deviation, ±13.3] years; mean disease duration: 9.9 [±10.1] years; mean swollen joint count: 4.1 [±5.1]; 84.3% with current psoriasis [mainly of less than 5% body surface area]), 50.2% were females. Mean patient global assessment was 4.8 (±2.7), mean joint and skin patient assessments were respectively 5.6 (±2.5) and 4.1 (±3.0). Intraclass correlation between patient global assessment and joint or skin patient assessment was respectively 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.77) and 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.60). In multivariate analyses, patient global assessment was explained (R(2) of model: 0.754) by coping (β = 0.287); pain (β = 0.240); work and/or leisure activities (β = 0.141); and anxiety (β = 0.109).Conclusions: Patient global assessment in psoriatic arthritis was explained mainly by physical, but also psychological aspects of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the treatment effectiveness of secukinumab in radiographic (r) versus non-radiographic (nr) axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients treated in routine care across Europe., Methods: Prospectively collected data on secukinumab-treated axSpA patients with known radiographic status were pooled from nine countries.Remission rates based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs; Numeric Rating Scale (0-10), for example, pain ≤2/Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≤2 and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) inactive disease (ID) <1.3 after 6/12/24 months of secukinumab treatment were calculated.Remission and drug retention rates in r-axSpA versus nr-axSpA patients were compared by logistic and Cox regression models (unadjusted/adjusted for age+sex/adjusted for multiple confounders)., Results: Overall, 1161 secukinumab-treated patients were included (r-axSpA/nr-axSpA: 922/239). At baseline, r-axSpA patients had longer disease duration and higher C reactive protein, were more often male and HLA-B27 positive and had received fewer prior biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs compared with nr-axSpA patients, whereas PROs were largely similar.During follow-up, crude PRO remission rates were significantly higher in r-axSpA compared with nr-axSpA patients (6 months: pain≤2: 40%/28%, OR=1.7; BASDAI≤2: 37%/25%, OR=1.8), as were drug retention rates (24 months: 66%/58%, HR 0.73 (ref: r-axSpA)). Proportions of patients achieving ASDAS ID were low for both groups, particularly nr-axSpA (6 months: 11%/8%).However, when adjusting for age+sex, these differences diminished, and after adjusting for multiple confounders, no significant between-group differences remained for either remission or drug retention rates., Conclusion: Crude remission/drug retention rates in European secukinumab-treated patients were higher in r-axSpA compared with nr-axSpA patients. In adjusted analyses, secukinumab effectiveness was similar in both groups, suggesting that observed differences were related to factors other than radiographic status., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SNC: Speaker fees BMS and GE, Research grant from Novartis (paid to the employer). SHR: Research grant from Novartis (paid to the employer). MO: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB. Research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Merck, Novartis and UCB. MP: Research grant from Novartis (paid to the employer). Speaker fees: Sandoz. Brigitte Michelsen: Consulting fees from Novartis. Research grant from Novartis (paid to employer). KP: Consultancy fees: AbbVie, UCB, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Celltrion, MSD and Novartis. Catalin Codreanu: Speaker and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. Adrian Ciurea: None. Bente Glintborg: Research grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, BMS, Sandoz. MJS: Speaker fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer. Ismail Sari: None. ZR: Speaker and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, SOBI, Swixx BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Amgen, MSD, Medis, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Lek. BG: Speaker and consultancy fees from Novartis and Nordic-Pharma. GJM: Research grant from GSK. HR: Consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Pfizer, UCB, Viatris. FI: None. Karin Laas: Speakers fees from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer. JKW: Speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen. Research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. MvdS: Consultant for Novartis, AbbVie, Eli Lilly UCB, Speakers fee: Novartis, UCB, Janssen, Grant/research support: UCB, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly. Sella Aarrestad Provan: Consultancy fees and Research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. IC: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from BMS, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, GSK. JZ: Speakers fees from AbbVie, Elli-Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Egis, UCB, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Sobi. CM: None. MJN: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssens, Novartis, Pfizer. Research grants from Novartis and Pfizer. AGL: Speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Research grant from Novartis. AB: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Lilly, Janssen and Novartis. YE: None. Katja Perdan Pirkmajer: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Novartis, MSD, Medis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Lek, Janssen and Boehringer Ingelheim. GG: None. GTJ: Speaker fee from Janssen. Research grants (paid to employer) from AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen, GSK. A-MH: Grant/research support from MSD. MSC: None. SV: None. DdG: None. TKK: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB and Grünenthal. LO-V: None. IvdH-B: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, UCB, MSD, Novartis, Lilly. Unrestricted Grants received for investigator initiated studies from MSD, Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB. Fees received for Lectures from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, UCB. MLH: Advisory Board AbbVie (No personal income, paid to institution). Prev. chaired the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO, DRQ), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies. Speaker for Pfizer, Medac, Sandoz (no personal income, institution). Research grants (institution) from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz, Novartis, Nordforsk. LMO: Research grant from Novartis (paid to the employer)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To investigate real-world retention and remission rates in PsA patients initiating a 2nd or 3rd TNFi and the association with reason for discontinuation from the previous TNFi-treatment., Methods: Prospectively collected routine care data from 12 European registries were pooled. Retention rates (Kaplan-Meier estimation) and crude/LUNDEX-adjusted rates of Disease Activity Score 28 and Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAS28 and DAPSA28) remission were calculated and compared with adjusted Cox regression analyses and Chi-squared test, respectively)., Results: We included 5233 (2nd TNFi) and 1906 (3rd TNFi) patients. Twelve-month retention rates for the 2nd and 3rd TNFi were 68% (95%CI: 67-70%) and 66% (64-68%), respectively. Patients who stopped the previous TNFi due to AE/LOE had 12-month retention rates of 66%/65% (2nd TNFi), and 65%/63% (3rd TNFi), respectively. Patients who stopped the previous TNFi due to LOE after less vs more than 24 weeks had 12-month retention rates of 54%/69% (2nd TNFi), and 58%/65% (3rd TNFi). Six-month crude/LUNDEX-adjusted DAS28 remission rates were 48%/35% and 38%/27%, and DAPSA28 remission rates were 19%/14% and 14%/10%, for the 2nd and 3rd TNFi., Conclusion: Two-thirds of patients remained on TNFi at 12months for both the 2nd and 3rd TNFi, while one-third and one-quarter of patients were in DAS28 remission after 6months on the 2nd and 3rd TNFi. While drug effectiveness was similar in patients who stopped the previous TNFi due to AE compared to overall LOE, drug effectiveness was better in patients who had stopped the previous TNF due to secondary LOE compared to primary LOE., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: There is a lack of real-life studies on interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibition in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We assessed real-life 6- and 12-month effectiveness (i.e., retention, remission, low disease activity [LDA], and response rates) of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab in PsA patients overall and across 1) number of prior biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), 2) years since diagnosis, and 3) European registries., Methods: Thirteen quality registries in rheumatology participating in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network provided longitudinal, observational data collected as part of routine care for secondary use. Data were pooled and analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots, log rank tests, Cox regression, and multiple linear and logistic regression analyses., Results: A total of 2,017 PsA patients started treatment with secukinumab between 2015 and 2018. Overall secukinumab retention rates were 86% and 76% after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Crude (LUNDEX adjusted) 6-month remission/LDA (LDA including remission) rates for the 28-joint Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level, and the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) were 13%/46% (11%/39%), 36%/55% (30%/46%), and 13%/56% (11%/47%), and 12-month rates were 11%/46% (7%/31%), 39%/56% (26%/38%), and 16%/62% (10%/41%), respectively. Clinical Disease Activity Index remission/LDA rates were similar to the SDAI rates. Six-month American College of Rheumatology 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria responses were 34%/19%/11% (29%/16%/9%); 12-month rates were 37%/21%/11% (24%/14%/7%). Secukinumab effectiveness was significantly better for b/tsDMARD-naive patients, similar across time since diagnosis (<2/2-4/>4 years), and varied significantly across the European registries., Conclusion: In this large real-world study on secukinumab treatment in PsA, 6- and 12-month effectiveness was comparable to that in previous observational studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Retention, remission, LDA, and response rates were significantly better for b/tsDMARD-naive patients, were independent of time since diagnosis, and varied significantly across the European countries., (© 2021 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To compare treatment effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients naïve to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) treated with tocilizumab (TCZ) or TNF-inhibitor (TNFi) with (-combo) or without (-mono) conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs)., Methods: Patients with RA across 7 European registries, naïve to bDMARDs who initiated treatment with TCZ or TNFi from 2009 to 2016 were included. Drug retention rate was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models, and CDAI over time by mixed models. The proportions of patients reaching CDAI low disease activity (LDA) and remission after one year were corrected for attrition., Results: 6713 TNFi-combo, 3762 TNFi-mono, 646 TCZ-combo and 384 TCZ-mono were eligible. Crude median retention was 3.67 years (95%CI 3.41-3.83) for TNFi-combo, 4.14 (3.77-4.62) for TNFi-mono, 2.98 (2.76-3.34) for TCZ-combo and 3.63 years (3.34-5.03) for TCZ-mono. After adjustment for covariates, country and year of treatment initiation stratification, hazards of discontinuation were lower for TCZ-mono (0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.69) and TCZ-combo (0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81) compared to TNFi-combo. Adjusted CDAI evolution was not significantly different between groups. CDAI LDA and remission corrected for attrition were similar between TCZ with or without csDMARDs and TNFi-combo., Conclusion: In routine care across 7 European countries, the adjusted drug retention, adjusted CDAI over time and attrition-corrected response proportion for RA patients were similar for bio-naïve patients if treated with TNFi-combo, TCZ-combo or TCZ-mono., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the association of the evolution in physician-reported and patient-reported outcomes with decision to stop biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in RA. The contribution of baseline characteristics is well established, but little is known about how the disease evolution influences the decision to discontinue therapy., Methods: RA patients who initiated a bDMARD treatment from 2009 and with information on date of visit were pooled from seven European RA registers. Each outcome was divided into baseline assessments (capturing the inter-individual differences at drug initiation) and changes from baseline at subsequent visits (capturing the individual evolution). Cox regression models were used to examine their association with drug discontinuation, adjusting for baseline patient and co-therapy characteristics and stratifying by register and calendar year of drug initiation., Results: A total of 25 077 patients initiated a bDMARDs (18 507 a TNF-inhibitor, 3863 tocilizumab and 2707 abatacept) contributing an amount of 46 456.8 patient-years. Overall, drug discontinuation was most strongly associated with a poor evolution of the DAS28, with a hazard ratio of 1.34 (95% CI 1.29, 1.40), followed by its baseline value. A change of Physician Global Assessment was the next strongest predictor of discontinuation, then the Patient Global Assessment., Conclusions: The decision to discontinue treatments appears to be mostly influenced by DAS28 and particularly its evolution over time, followed by Physician Global Assessment evolution, suggesting that the decision to stop bDMARDs relies more on the physician's than on the patient's global assessment., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To analyse the similarities and discrepancies between the official rheumatology specialty training programmes across Europe., Methods: A steering committee defined the main aspects of training to be assessed. In 2013, the rheumatology official training programmes were reviewed for each of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) countries and two local physicians independently extracted data on the structure of training, included competencies and assessments performed. Analyses were descriptive., Results: 41 of the 45 EULAR countries currently provide specialist training in rheumatology; in the remaining four rheumatologists are trained abroad. 36 (88%) had a single national curriculum, one country had two national curricula and four had only local or university-specific curricula. The mean length of training programmes in rheumatology was 45 (SD 19) months, ranging between 3 and 72 months. General internal medicine training was mandatory in 40 (98%) countries, and was performed prior to and/or during the rheumatology training programme (mean length: 33 (19) months). 33 (80%) countries had a formal final examination., Conclusions: Most European countries provide training in rheumatology, but the length, structure, contents and assessments of these training programmes are quite heterogeneous. In order to promote excellence in standards of care and to support physicians' mobility, a certain degree of harmonisation should be encouraged., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

In this article, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) standardised operating procedures for the elaboration, evaluation, dissemination and implementation of recommendations endorsed by the EULAR standing committees published in 2004 have been updated. The various steps from the application to implementation have been described in detail., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach., Objectives: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions., Methods: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards., Results: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided., Conclusions: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Existing practice guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) analyze the evidence behind each proposed treatment but do not prioritize the interventions in a given sequence. The objective was to develop a treatment algorithm recommendation that is easier to interpret for the prescribing physician based on the available evidence and that is applicable in Europe and internationally. The knee was used as the model OA joint., Methods: ESCEO assembled a task force of 13 international experts (rheumatologists, clinical epidemiologists, and clinical scientists). Existing guidelines were reviewed; all interventions listed and recent evidence were retrieved using established databases. A first schematic flow chart with treatment prioritization was discussed in a 1-day meeting and shaped to the treatment algorithm. Fine-tuning occurred by electronic communication and three consultation rounds until consensus., Results: Basic principles consist of the need for a combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment with a core set of initial measures, including information access/education, weight loss if overweight, and an appropriate exercise program. Four multimodal steps are then established. Step 1 consists of background therapy, either non-pharmacological (referral to a physical therapist for re-alignment treatment if needed and sequential introduction of further physical interventions initially and at any time thereafter) or pharmacological. The latter consists of chronic Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for OA (e.g., prescription glucosamine sulfate and/or chondroitin sulfate) with paracetamol at-need; topical NSAIDs are added in the still symptomatic patient. Step 2 consists of the advanced pharmacological management in the persistent symptomatic patient and is centered on the use of oral COX-2 selective or non-selective NSAIDs, chosen based on concomitant risk factors, with intra-articular corticosteroids or hyaluronate for further symptom relief if insufficient. In Step 3, the last pharmacological attempts before surgery are represented by weak opioids and other central analgesics. Finally, Step 4 consists of end-stage disease management and surgery, with classical opioids as a difficult-to-manage alternative when surgery is contraindicated., Conclusions: The proposed treatment algorithm may represent a new framework for the development of future guidelines for the management of OA, more easily accessible to physicians., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore criteria regulating treatment with reimbursed biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across Europe and to relate criteria to indicators of national socioeconomic welfare., Methods: A cross-sectional study among 46 European countries. One expert from each country completed a questionnaire on criteria regulating the start, maintenance/stop and switch of reimbursed bDMARDs. A composite score was developed to evaluate the level of restrictions in prescription of a first bDMARD (0=highly restricted, 5=most liberal). The level of restrictiveness was correlated with national socioeconomic welfare indicators., Results: In 10 countries (22%), no bDMARD was reimbursed. Among 36 countries with at least one biologic reimbursed, 23(64%) had no requirement for disease duration to initiate a biologic. Half of the countries required a failure of two synthetic DMARDs to qualify for therapy. 31 countries specified a minimum level of disease activity to be fulfilled and in 20 (56%) countries cut-off for disease activity score with 28-joint assessment was higher than 3.2. Four countries (11%) had the maximum composite score (most liberal) and 20 (56%) scored between 0 and 2 (more restrictive). Criteria for initiation of a bDMARD were negatively associated with countries' socioeconomic welfare (-0.34 to -0.64), and a moderate positive correlation was found between the composite score and welfare indicators (0.59-0.72). Only some countries had regulations for stopping (n=14(39%)) or switching (n=19(53%))., Conclusions: Clinical criteria regulating prescription of bDMARDs in RA differ significantly across Europe. Countries with lower socioeconomic welfare tend to have stricter eligibility criteria, pointing to inequities in access to treatment., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: We investigated access to biologic and synthetic disease modifying drugs (bDMARDs and sDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across Europe., Methods: A cross-sectional study at national level was performed in 49 European countries. A questionnaire was sent to one expert, addressing the number of approved and reimbursed bDMARDs and sDMARDs, prices and co-payments, as well as acceptability of bDMARDs (barriers). Data on socio-economic welfare (gross domestic product per capita (GDP), health expenditure, income) were retrieved from web-based sources. Data on health status of RA patients were retrieved from an observational study. Dimensions of access (availability, affordability and acceptability) were correlated with the country's welfare and RA health status., Results: In total, 46 countries (94%) participated. Six countries did not reimburse any of the five sDMARDs surveyed, and in ten countries no bDMARDs were reimbursed. While the price of annual treatment with an average sDMARD was never higher than GPD, the price of one year treatment with a bDMARD exceeded GPD in 26 countries. Perceived barriers for access to bDMARDs were mainly found among financial and administrative restrictions. All dimensions of access were positively correlated with the country's economic welfare (coefficients 0.69 to 0.86 for overall access scores)., Conclusions: Patients with RA in lower income European countries have less access to bDMARDs and sDMARDs, with particularly striking unaffordability of bDMARDs in some of these countries. When accepting that sDMARDs and bDMARDs are equally needed across countries to treat RA, our data point to inequities in access to pharmacological treatment for RA in Europe.

The aim of this report was to propose a definition for erosive disease in the context of inflammatory arthritis in light of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) criteria for use in clinical practice and studies. A EULAR task force was formed including 16 rheumatologists and one rheumatology fellow. The process was both evidence based and consensus based, and included, between March 2010 and April 2012, analyses of data from two cohorts, two face-to-face meetings, one online voting and one teleconference. The Leiden Early Arthritis Cohort and the French ESPOIR cohort were used for the evidence-based part. The outcome measures, which were initiation of methotrexate therapy, or any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy within the first year of disease and arthritis persistency over 5 years, were studied with the aim to give the best definition of erosive disease. A decision was made to select a definition with a high specificity and focus on patients who did not otherwise fulfil the 2010 ACR/EULAR RA criteria (<6 points). By a unanimous vote the following definition was selected: erosive disease for use in the 2010 ACR/EULAR RA classification criteria is defined when an erosion (defined as a cortical break) is seen in at least three separate joints at any of the following sites: the proximal interphalangeal, the metacarpophalangeal, the wrist (counted as one joint) and the metatarsophalangeal joints on radiographs of both hands and feet. A highly specific definition for erosive disease has thus been formulated.

Objective: Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition., Methods: A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes., Results: Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (e.g., tender and swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and global assessments on a 0-10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year followup data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score-based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patient's RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (a) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0-10 scale) are all ≤ 1, or (b) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤ 3.3., Conclusion: We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. We recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial., (Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticized for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA., Methods: A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in 3 phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease--this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis.", Results: In the new criteria set, classification as "definite RA" is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0-5), serologic abnormality (score range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (score range 0-1), and symptom duration (2 levels; range 0-1)., Conclusion: This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis."

Objectives: The introduction of biological therapies for the treatment of rheumatic diseases has drawn attention to the limitations of traditional means of assessing drug safety. Consequently, a series of European academic biologics registers dedicated to this task have been established. Increasing reliance upon safety data generated from observational drug registers makes it important to convert the lessons learned from such registers into recommendations for rheumatologists embarking upon the establishment of future registers, or analysing and reporting from new and existing registers., Methods: The Task Force encompassed 11 scientists from European Rheumatology drug registers. Through an informal inventory of critical elements in the establishment of existing rheumatoid arthritis drug registers, of analytical strategies used and of limitations of their results, several 'points to consider'--beyond established generic guidelines for observational registers/studies but with particular relevance to biologics registers on safety in rheumatology--were assembled. For each 'point to consider', contextual and methodological background and examples were compiled., Results: A set of seven points to consider was assembled for the establishment of new drug registers with a focus on purpose, population to be targeted, data collection, handling and storage as well as ethical and legal considerations. For analysis and reporting, nine points to consider were assembled (setting, participant, variable, statistical method, descriptive data, outcome data, main results, other analyses and limitations)., Conclusions: Thoughtful design and planning before the establishment of biologics registers will increase their sustainability, versatility and raw data quality. Harmonisation of analyses and reporting from such registers will improve interpretation of drug safety studies.

Objective: The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism have developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of Phase 2 of the development process was to achieve expert consensus on the clinical and laboratory variables that should contribute to the final criteria set., Methods: Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of "developing RA," complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis., Results: The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach., Conclusion: The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set.

Objective: The protective effect of HLA-DRB1 alleles on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of 4 European populations to investigate which HLA-DRB1 alleles are associated with protection in anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive RA and ACPA-negative RA., Methods: Data for >2,800 patients and >3,000 control subjects for whom information on HLA-DRB1 typing and ACPA status was available were collected from 4 European countries: Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Spain. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) associated with the different HLA-DRB1 alleles were analyzed in a combined meta-analysis focused on protective alleles and classifications. The analysis of ACPA-positive RA was stratified for the shared epitope (SE) alleles, to correct for skewing due to this association., Results: In ACPA-positive RA, the only alleles that conveyed protection after stratification for SE were HLA-DRB1*13 alleles (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.38-0.77]). The protective effect of the allele classifications based on the DERAA and D70 sequences was no longer present after exclusion of DRB1*13 (for D70, OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.75-1.25]), indicating that DRB1*13, rather than the DERAA or D70 sequence as such, is associated with protection. Among the DRB1*13 alleles, only DRB1*1301 was associated with protection (OR 0.24 [95% CI 0.09-0.59]). Protection appeared to follow a north-to-south gradient, with the strongest association in northern European countries. In ACPA-negative RA, there were no robust associations with HLA-DRB1 alleles., Conclusion: Our data do not support any of the classifications of protective alleles and indicate that protection against ACPA-positive RA is predominantly associated with HLA-DRB1*1301.

Background: Therapeutic approaches to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have undergone significant changes. The importance of tight control and early treatment, rapidly altered if goals are not achieved, is supported by evidence. However, it is unknown to what extent these insights are accepted by practitioners in clinical practice., Objective: To obtain information about standard follow-up and treatment practices, and rheumatologists' aims in the care of patients with RA., Methods: A survey conducted at the 2008 EULAR Congress., Results: Most specialists, who were mainly from Europe and Latin America, were well-informed about recent concepts: two-thirds specified remission as a major goal. The experts attempted to reach treatment aims within 12-14 weeks, altering treatment otherwise. Disease activity assessment by composite measures is performed by a majority, although one-third preferentially relied upon their judgment., Conclusion: These results suggest the acceptance of ambitious treatment concepts in practice. Although voluntary surveys have limitations, the answers reflect widespread adoption of desirable standards of care.