Search

Objective: Since obesity has been associated with a higher inflammatory burden and worse response to therapy in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (CIRD), we aimed to confirm the potential association between body mass index (BMI) and disease activity in a large series of patients with CIRDs included in the Spanish CARdiovascular in rheuMAtology (CARMA) registry., Methods: Baseline data analysis of patients included from the CARMA project, a 10-year prospective study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) attending outpatient rheumatology clinics from 67 Spanish hospitals. Obesity was defined when BMI (kg/m 2 ) was >30 according to the WHO criteria. Scores used to evaluate disease activity were Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) in RA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in AS, and modified DAS for PsA., Results: Data from 2234 patients (775 RA, 738 AS, and 721 PsA) were assessed. The mean ± SD BMI at the baseline visit were: 26.9 ± 4.8 in RA, 27.4 ± 4.4 in AS, and 28.2 ± 4.7 in PsA. A positive association between BMI and disease activity in patients with RA (β = 0.029; 95%CI (0.01- 0.05); p = 0.007) and PsA (β = 0.036; 95%CI (0.015-0.058); p = 0.001) but not in those with AS (β = 0.001; 95%CI (-0.03-0.03); p = 0.926) was found. Disease activity was associated with female sex and rheumatoid factor in RA and with Psoriasis Area Severity Index and enthesitis in PsA., Conclusions: BMI is associated with disease activity in RA and PsA, but not in AS. Given that obesity is a potentially modifiable factor, adequate control of body weight can improve the outcome of patients with CIRD and, therefore, weight control should be included in the management strategy of these patients.

Objectives: The objective of the present study was to assess the efficacy of apremilast (APR) in the management of refractory oral and/or genital ulcers in patients with Behçet's disease (BD)., Methods: National multicentre open-label observational study on BD patients with recurrent oral and/or genital ulcers. In all cases orogenital ulcers were refractory to conventional therapy. APR was given and maintained at standard dose of 30 mg twice daily. The main outcome was the achievement of oral and/or genital ulcers remission. Efficacy of APR for other clinical manifestations was also evaluated., Results: We included 51 patients (35 women/16 men; mean age 44.7±13.2 years). Before APR, all patients had received several systemic conventional and/or biologic drugs. APR was initiated because of refractory oral (n=19) or genital (n=2) aphthous ulcers or both (n=30). Other manifestations found at APR onset were arthralgia/arthritis (n=16), folliculitis/pseudofolliculitis (n=14), erythema nodosum (n=3), furunculosis (n=2), paradoxical psoriasis induced by TNF-α-inhibitors (n=2), ileitis (n=2), deep venous thrombosis (n=2), leg ulcers (n=1), erythematosus and scaly skin lesions (n=1), fever (n=1), unilateral anterior uveitis (n=1) and neuro Behçet (n=1). After a mean follow-up of 8.5±6.9 months, most patients had experienced improvement of orogenital ulcers and prednisone dose had been successfully reduced or discontinued. APR also yielded improvement of some non-aphthous manifestations such as the cutaneous follicular and intestinal manifestations. However, the effect on musculoskeletal manifestations was variable., Conclusions: APR yielded a rapid and maintained improvement of refractory mucocutaneous ulcers of BD, even in patients refractory to several systemic drugs including biologic therapy.

Objectives: To explore the remission concept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the implications of the existing definitions when applied to clinical practice among rheumatologists with different profiles., Methods: A qualitative study through focus groups was conducted. Three focus groups were organised from February to March 2016. Each group was composed of rheumatologists with extensive clinical experience with different profiles; experts in basic research (RBR), experts in imaging techniques research (RIR), and experts in clinical research (RCR). The data was collected with audio recording. Verbatim transcriptions of the audio files were made, and a subsequent reflexive thematic analysis assisted by ATLAS.ti (GmbH, Berlin, v. 7) software was performed., Results: From the reflexive thematic analysis, three main themes were generated: (1) remission limitations, (2) instruments or measures to assess remission, and (3) a new definition of remission. Rheumatologists mentioned frequently that the following variables should be considered when developing a new remission definition: inflammatory activity, calprotectin, psychological variables, sex, disease stage, and sociocultural factors. Contrary to what could be expected, all groups acknowledged that their research field could contribute with domains for a gold standard remission instrument, but not in a hierarchical arrangement of importance. The dissonance existing in the entire remission evaluation process was outlined: remission in clinical practice versus remission in clinical trials, remission following the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Boolean versus Musculoskeletal Ultrasound (US) remission, and remission from the rheumatologist's point of view versus the patient's point of view., Conclusions: Currently, rheumatologists would not accept a domain as more important than others in remission. Our suggestion is, not to generate a universal definition of remission - one that could cover all aspects - but rather to develop definitions of remission for the different settings that could be pondered by the patient's perspective.

Objectives: To explore the remission concept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare remission definitions and related concepts between rheumatologists and patients with the purpose of identifying similarities and disparities to comprehend the different perspectives of the disease., Methods: This was a qualitative study of discourse and content analysis through focus groups, conducted from February to March 2016. Four focus groups were set up, each one with different interests: rheumatologists involved in basic research (BR), rheumatologists with high specialisation in imaging techniques (IR), clinical rheumatologists (CR), and patients (PA)., Results: There is no consensus in a remission definition in RA; differences exist between-groups, rheumatologists and patients value remission differently, and there are discrepancies within the group of rheumatologists. Rheumatologists highlight quantifiable objective parameters, in contrast, patients did not consider objective measures as the best instruments, and they prefer subjective measures of remission. The data confirmed the existence of two sources of knowledge of the disease, technical (physicians) and experiential (patients). These sources of knowledge should concur in order to establish new remission criteria well-adjusted to reality., Conclusions: The lack of consensus between key groups implicated in defining remission and remission criteria suggests a new strategy for its operational definition. Our group proposes that subjects with a balance between experiential and technical knowledge, should be the ones in charge of this assignment.