Search

Purpose of review: The review presents an overview of the scientific publications in the field of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in sarcoidosis. Recent findings: Literature on HRQL in sarcoidosis is limited. HRQL was mainly used as a primary or secondary endpoint in intervention studies. Moreover, most studies have measured HRQL in sarcoidosis by means of the generic questionnaire 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Sarcoidosis-specific questionnaires and computer-adapted testing are innovative approaches to the field. Summary: HRQL as a primary or secondary outcome in sarcoidosis studies is still scarce. In addition to the proper definition of the concept, the mode of measurement of HRQL remains a matter of debate. Because health-economical evaluations require data on gained quality of life, future studies on sarcoidosis should include HRQL as the study endpoint

Objective.To identify a comprehensive list of features that might discriminate between gout and other rheumatic musculoskeletal conditions, to be used subsequently for a case-control study to develop and test new classification criteria for gout.Methods.Two Delphi exercises were conducted using Web-based questionnaires: one with physicians from several countries who had an interest in gout and one with patients from New Zealand who had gout. Physicians rated a list of potentially discriminating features that were identified by literature review and expert opinion, and patients rated a list of features that they generated themselves. Agreement was defined by the RAND/UCLA disagreement index.Results.Forty-four experienced physicians and 9 patients responded to all iterations. For physicians, 71 items were identified by literature review and 15 more were suggested by physicians. The physician survey showed agreement for 26 discriminatory features and 15 as not discriminatory. The patients identified 46 features of gout, for which there was agreement on 25 items as being discriminatory and 7 items as not discriminatory.Conclusion.Patients and physicians agreed upon several key features of gout. Physicians emphasized objective findings, imaging, and patterns of symptoms, whereas patients emphasized severity, functional results, and idiographic perception of symptoms.

Managing pain from chronic conditions, such as, but not limited to, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, requires the clinician to balance the need for effective analgesia against safety risks associated with analgesic agents. Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis pain is incompletely understood but involves both nociceptive and non-nociceptive mechanisms, including neuropathic mechanisms. Prevailing guidelines for arthritis-related pain do not differentiate between nociceptive and non-nociceptive pain, sometimes leading to recommendations that do not fully address the nature of pain. NSAIDs are effective in treating the nociceptive arthritis-related pain. However, safety concerns of NSAIDs may cause clinicians to undertreat arthritis-related pain. In this context, combination therapy may be more appropriate to manage the different pain mechanisms involved. A panel convened in November 2010 found that among the currently recommended analgesic products for arthritis-related pain, fixed-low-dose combination products hold promise for pain control because such products allow lower doses of individual agents resulting in decreased toxicity and acceptable efficacy due to synergy between the individual drugs. Better evidence and recommendations are required to improve treatment of chronic arthritis-related pain.

The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is challenging because of the diversity of disease courses (from mild to aggressive) and because of the large varying response to treatment. At present, the individual patient is treated in accordance to international guidelines based on findings from randomized controlled trials and large study cohorts. As a consequence, each patient does not get the optimal treatment from his/her individual perspective. In this article the currently available ways that could optimize the treatment in the individual patient are addressed.

1Department of Pain Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont, Dublin, Ireland; 2Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Association of Chronic Pain Patients, Houston, TX; Department of Pharmacology, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Arthritis Center Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; 4Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Osteology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, Switzerland; 5Centro de Salud Universitario Goya, Madrid, Spain; 6Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, and International Clinic Research, Leawood, KS, USA; 7Service de Medecine Interne et Consultation de la Douleur, Hopital Hotel Dieu, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France; 8Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia PA, USA