Search

Background: The ten-joint juvenile arthritis disease activity score (JADAS10) is designed to measure the level of disease activity in non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis by providing a single numeric score. The clinical JADAS10 (cJADAS10) is a modification of the JADAS10 that excludes erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Three different sets of JADAS10/cJADAS10 cut-offs for disease activity states have been published, i.e., the Backström, Consolaro, and Trincianti cut-offs. The objective of this study was to investigate the performance of existing JADAS10 cut-offs in real-life settings using patient data from The Finnish Rheumatology Quality Register (FinRheuma). Methods: Data were collected from the FinRheuma register. The proportion of patients with an active joint count (AJC) above zero when classified as being in clinically inactive disease (CID) or low disease activity (LDA) groups according to existing JADAS10/cJADAS10 cut-off levels were analyzed. Results: A significantly larger proportion of the patients classified as being in CID had an AJC > 0 when using the JADAS10/cJADAS10 cut-offs by Trincianti et al. compared to those for the other cut-offs. In the LDA group, a significantly larger proportion of the polyarticular patients (35%/29%) had an AJC of two when Trincianti JADAS10/cJADAS10 cut-offs were used compared with when Backström (11%/10%) and Consolaro (7%/3%) JADAS10/cJADAS10 cut-offs were used. Conclusions: We found the cut-offs proposed by Consolaro et al. to be the most feasible, since these cut-off levels for CID do not result in the misclassification of active disease as remission, and the proportion of patients with AJC > 1 in the LDA group is lowest using these cut-offs.

Objectives: To study the joint distribution and clinical picture of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at the initial presentation in seropositive (anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and/or rheumatoid factor (RF) positive) and negative patients and the effect of duration of symptoms on the clinical picture. Methods: Data of patients who received reimbursement for DMARDs for newly diagnosed RA in 1/2019 to 9/2021 were extracted from the national databases. Joint counts, presence of symmetrical swelling, other disease activity measures, and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were compared in seropositive and negative patients. Regression analyses were applied to compare clinical variables in patients with duration of symptoms of <3, 3–6, and >6 months, adjusted for age, sex, and seropositivity. Results: Data of 1816 ACPA and RF-tested patients were included. Symmetrical swelling was present in 75% of patients. Seronegative versus positive patients had higher value for all disease activity measures and PROs including median swollen joint count (SJC46 10 versus 5) and DAS28 (4.7 versus 3.7), (p<0.001). Patients diagnosed in <3 months had higher median pain VAS (62 versus 52 and 50, p<0.001) and HAQ (1.1 versus 0.9 and 0.75, p = 0.002) compared to those with a duration of symptoms of 3–6 and >6 months. Patients diagnosed >6 months were ACPA-positive more frequently (77% versus 70% in other groups, p = 0.045). Conclusion: Incident RA presents mainly as symmetric arthritis. Seronegative patients have higher disease burden at the initial presentation. Patients experiencing more severe pain and decreased functional ability are diagnosed earlier, regardless of ACPA- status.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the validity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnoses in patients participating in Finnish biobanks. Method: We reviewed the electronic medical records of 500 Finnish biobank participants: 125 patients with at least one visit with a diagnosis of seropositive RA, 125 patients with at least one visit with a diagnosis of seronegative RA, and 250 age- and gender-matched controls. The patients were chosen from five different biobank hospitals in Finland. A rheumatologist reviewed the medical records to assess whether each patients’ diagnosis was correct. The diagnosis was compared with the diagnostic codes in the Finnish Care Register for Health Care (CRHC) and special reimbursement data of the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Results: The positive predictive value (PPV) of CRHC diagnosis of RA (for seropositive and seronegative RA combined) was 0.82. For patients with a special reimbursement for anti-rheumatic medications for RA, the PPV was 0.89. The PPV was higher in patients with more than one visit. For one, two, five, and 10 visits, the PPV was 0.82, 0.85, 0.89, and 0.90, respectively, and for patients who also had the special reimbursement, the PPV was 0.89, 0.91, 0.93, and 0.94 for one, two, five, and 10 visits, respectively. In patients positive for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, the PPV was 0.98. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that the validity of RA diagnoses in Finnish biobanks was good and can be further improved by including data on special reimbursement for medication, number of visits, and serological data.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: Many axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) patients receive a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in combination with a TNF inhibitor (TNFi). However, the value of this co-therapy remains unclear. The objectives were to describe the characteristics of axSpA patients initiating a first TNFi as monotherapy compared with co-therapy with csDMARD, to compare one-year TNFi retention and remission rates, and to explore the impact of peripheral arthritis. METHODS: Data was collected from 13 European registries. One-year outcomes included TNFi retention and hazard ratios (HR) for discontinuation with 95% CIs. Logistic regression was performed with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of achieving remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)-CRP < 1.3 and/or BASDAI < 2) and stratified by treatment. Inter-registry heterogeneity was assessed using random-effect meta-analyses, combined results were presented when heterogeneity was not significant. Peripheral arthritis was defined as ≥1 swollen joint at baseline (=TNFi start). RESULTS: Amongst 24 171 axSpA patients, 32% received csDMARD co-therapy (range across countries: 13.5% to 71.2%). The co-therapy group had more baseline peripheral arthritis and higher CRP than the monotherapy group. One-year TNFi-retention rates (95% CI): 79% (78, 79%) for TNFi monotherapy vs 82% (81, 83%) with co-therapy (P < 0.001). Remission was obtained in 20% on monotherapy and 22% on co-therapy (P < 0.001); adjusted OR of 1.16 (1.07, 1.25). Remission rates at 12 months were similar in patients with/without peripheral arthritis. CONCLUSION: This large European study of axial SpA patients showed similar one-year treatment outcomes for TNFi monotherapy and csDMARD co-therapy, although considerable heterogeneity across countries limited the identification of certain subgroups (e.g. peripheral arthritis) that may benefit from co-therapy.

Introduction: The prevalence of immune-mediated diseases has increased in the past decades and despite the use of biological treatments all patients do not achieve remission. The aim of this study was to characterise the reasons for short interruptions during treatment with two commonly used TNF-inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab and to analyse the possible effects of the interruptions on immunisation and switching the treatment. Material and methods: This case-control study was based on retrospective analyses of patient records and a questionnaire survey to clinicians. A total of 370 patients (194 immunised cases and 172 non-immunised controls, 4 excluded) were enrolled from eight hospitals around Finland. Eleven different diagnoses were represented, and the largest patient groups were those with inflammatory bowel or rheumatic diseases. Results: Treatment interruptions were associated with immunisation in patients using infliximab (p < .001) or adalimumab (p < .000001). Patients with treatment interruptions were more likely to have been treated with more than one biological agent compared to those without treatment interruptions. This was particularly prominent among patients with a rheumatic disease (p < .00001). The most frequent reason for a treatment interruption among the cases was an infection, whereas among the control patients it was remission. The median length of one interruption was one month (interquartile range 1–3 months). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the interruptions of the treatment with TNF-inhibitors expose patients to immunisation and increase the need for drug switching. These findings stress the importance of careful judgement of the need for a short interruption in the biological treatment in clinical work, especially during non-severe infections.

Contains fulltext : 137860.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), 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 at 3 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 b

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 6months (or improvement not seen at 3months). 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 bDM