Burkhard F. Leeb
Medical University of Graz
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Burkhard F. Leeb.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2005
Weiya Zhang; Michael Doherty; Burkhard F. Leeb; L Alekseeva; N K Arden; J. W. J. Bijlsma; F Dincer; Krysia Dziedzic; H J Hauselmann; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont; P Kaklamanis; Stefan Lohmander; E. Maheu; E Martin-Mola; Karel Pavelka; Leonardo Punzi; Susanne Reiter; J. Sautner; Josef S Smolen; G Verbruggen; I Zimmermann-Gorska
Objectives: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 16 rheumatologists, one physiatrist, one orthopaedic surgeon, two allied health professionals, and one evidence based medicine expert, representing 15 different European countries. Each participant contributed up to 10 propositions describing key clinical points for management of hand OA. Final recommendations were agreed using a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, AMED, Cochrane Library, HTA, and NICE reports was used to identify the best available research evidence to support each proposition. Where possible, the effect size and number needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risk or odds ratio was estimated for safety, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio was used for cost effectiveness. The strength of recommendation was provided according to research evidence, clinical expertise, and perceived patient preference. Results: Eleven key propositions involving 17 treatment modalities were generated through three Delphi rounds. Treatment topics included general considerations (for example, clinical features, risk factors, comorbidities), non-pharmacological (for example, education plus exercise, local heat, and splint), pharmacological (for example, paracetamol, NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, COX-2 inhibitors, systemic slow acting disease modifying drugs, intra-articular corticosteroids), and surgery. Of 17 treatment modalities, only six were supported by research evidence (education plus exercise, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, topical NSAIDs, topical capsaicin, and chondroitin sulphate). Others were supported either by evidence extrapolated from studies of OA affecting other joint sites or by expert opinion. Strength of recommendation varied according to level of evidence, benefits and harms/costs of the treatment, and clinical expertise. Conclusion: Eleven key recommendations for treatment of hand OA were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2006
Weiya Zhang; Michael Doherty; Thomas Bardin; Eliseo Pascual; V. Barskova; Philip G. Conaghan; J Gerster; J Jacobs; Burkhard F. Leeb; Frédéric Lioté; Geraldine M. McCarthy; P Netter; George Nuki; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; A Pignone; J. Pimentao; Leonardo Punzi; Edward Roddy; Till Uhlig; I Zimmermann-Gorska
Objective: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of gout. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 19 rheumatologists and one evidence based medicine expert representing 13 European countries. Key propositions on management were generated using a Delphi consensus approach. Research evidence was searched systematically for each proposition. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk, odds ratio, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. The quality of evidence was categorised according to the level of evidence. The strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed using the EULAR visual analogue and ordinal scales. Results: 12 key propositions were generated after three Delphi rounds. Propositions included both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments and addressed symptomatic control of acute gout, urate lowering therapy (ULT), and prophylaxis of acute attacks. The importance of patient education, modification of adverse lifestyle (weight loss if obese; reduced alcohol consumption; low animal purine diet) and treatment of associated comorbidity and risk factors were emphasised. Recommended drugs for acute attacks were oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oral colchicine (ES = 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.50)), or joint aspiration and injection of corticosteroid. ULT is indicated in patients with recurrent acute attacks, arthropathy, tophi, or radiographic changes of gout. Allopurinol was confirmed as effective long term ULT (ES = 1.39 (0.78 to 2.01)). If allopurinol toxicity occurs, options include other xanthine oxidase inhibitors, allopurinol desensitisation, or a uricosuric. The uricosuric benzbromarone is more effective than allopurinol (ES = 1.50 (0.76 to 2.24)) and can be used in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency but may be hepatotoxic. When gout is associated with the use of diuretics, the diuretic should be stopped if possible. For prophylaxis against acute attacks, either colchicine 0.5–1 mg daily or an NSAID (with gastroprotection if indicated) are recommended. Conclusions: 12 key recommendations for management of gout were developed, using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the SOR provided for each proposition.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2009
K. Visser; Wanruchada Katchamart; E. Loza; Juan A. Martínez-López; Carine Salliot; J. Trudeau; Claire Bombardier; Loreto Carmona; D. van der Heijde; Jwj Bijlsma; Dimitrios T. Boumpas; Helena Canhão; Christopher J. Edwards; Vedat Hamuryudan; T.K. Kvien; Burkhard F. Leeb; Emilio Martín-Mola; Herman Mielants; Ulf Müller-Ladner; G. Murphy; Mikkel Østergaard; I. A. Pereira; Cesar Ramos-Remus; Gabriele Valentini; Jane Zochling; Maxime Dougados
Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice in rheumatic disorders. Methods: 751 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2007–8 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and Delphi votes. Ten clinical questions concerning the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders were formulated. A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and 2005–7 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meeting abstracts was conducted. Selected articles were systematically reviewed and the evidence was appraised according to the Oxford levels of evidence. Each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed. Results: A total of 16 979 references was identified, of which 304 articles were included in the systematic reviews. Ten multinational key recommendations on the use of methotrexate were formulated. Nine recommendations were specific for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including the work-up before initiating methotrexate, optimal dosage and route, use of folic acid, monitoring, management of hepatotoxicity, long-term safety, mono versus combination therapy and management in the perioperative period and before/during pregnancy. One recommendation concerned methotrexate as a steroid-sparing agent in other rheumatic diseases. Conclusions: Ten recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice focussed on RA were developed, which are evidence based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, enhancing their validity and practical use.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2011
Weiya Zhang; Michael Doherty; Thomas Bardin; V. Barskova; Pierre-André Guerne; T.L.Th.A. Jansen; Burkhard F. Leeb; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; J. Pimentao; Leonardo Punzi; Pascal Richette; Francisca Sivera; Till Uhlig; I. Watt; Eliseo Pascual
Objectives To agree terminology and to develop recommendations for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD). Methods The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) CPPD Task Force, comprising 15 experts from 10 countries, agreed the terms and recommendations for diagnosis of CPPD using a Delphi consensus approach. Evidence was systematically reviewed and presented in terms of sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR) to support diagnosis; ORs were used for association. Strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. Results It was agreed that ‘CPPD’ should be the umbrella term that includes acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, osteoarthritis (OA) with CPPD and chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis. Chondrocalcinosis (CC) defines cartilage calcification, most commonly due to CPPD and detected by imaging or histological examination. A total of 11 key recommendations were generated on the topics of clinical features, synovial fluid (SF) examination, imaging, comorbidities and risk factors. Definitive diagnosis of CPPD relies on identification of SF CPP crystals. Rapid onset inflammatory symptoms and signs are suggestive but not definitive for acute CPP crystal arthritis. Radiographic CC is not highly sensitive or specific, whereas ultrasonography appears more useful (LR=24.2, 95% CI 3.51 to 168.01) for peripheral joints. Recognised risk factors for CPPD include ageing, OA and metabolic conditions such as primary hyperparathyroidism, haemochromatosis and hypomagnesaemia; familial forms are rare. SORs varied from 53 to 99 (maximum 100). Conclusion New terms for CPPD were agreed and 11 key recommendations for diagnosis of CPPD were developed using research evidence and expert consensus.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2014
Francisca Sivera; Mariano Andrés; Loreto Carmona; Alison S Kydd; John Hy Moi; Rakhi Seth; Melonie K Sriranganathan; Caroline van Durme; Irene van Echteld; Ophir Vinik; Mihir D. Wechalekar; Daniel Aletaha; Claire Bombardier; Rachelle Buchbinder; Christopher J. Edwards; Robert Landewé; Johannes W. J. Bijlsma; Jaime Branco; Ruben Burgos-Vargas; Anca Irinel Catrina; Dirk Elewaut; Antonio J.L. Ferrari; Patrick Kiely; Burkhard F. Leeb; Carlomaurizio Montecucco; Ulf Müller-Ladner; Mikkel Østergaard; Jane Zochling; Louise Falzon; Désirée van der Heijde
We aimed to develop evidence-based multinational recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout. Using a formal voting process, a panel of 78 international rheumatologists developed 10 key clinical questions pertinent to the diagnosis and management of gout. Each question was investigated with a systematic literature review. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and abstracts from 2010–2011 European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology meetings were searched in each review. Relevant studies were independently reviewed by two individuals for data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment. Using this evidence, rheumatologists from 14 countries (Europe, South America and Australasia) developed national recommendations. After rounds of discussion and voting, multinational recommendations were formulated. Each recommendation was graded according to the level of evidence. Agreement and potential impact on clinical practice were assessed. Combining evidence and clinical expertise, 10 recommendations were produced. One recommendation referred to the diagnosis of gout, two referred to cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, six focused on different aspects of the management of gout (including drug treatment and monitoring), and the last recommendation referred to the management of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. The level of agreement with the recommendations ranged from 8.1 to 9.2 (mean 8.7) on a 1–10 scale, with 10 representing full agreement. Ten recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout were established. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 14 countries, enhancing their utility in clinical practice.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2011
Weiya Zhang; Michael Doherty; Eliseo Pascual; V. Barskova; Pierre-André Guerne; T.L.Th.A. Jansen; Burkhard F. Leeb; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; J. Pimentao; Leonardo Punzi; Pascal Richette; Francisca Sivera; Till Uhlig; Iain Watt; Thomas Bardin
Objectives To develop evidence-based recommendations for management of calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD). Methods A multidisciplinary guideline development group of 15 experts, representing 10 European countries, generated key propositions for management of CPPD using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation research evidence was searched systematically. Whenever possible, the effect size and number needed to treat for efficacy and RR or OR for side effects were calculated for individual treatment modalities. Strength of recommendation was assessed by the European League Against Rheumatism visual analogue scale. Results Nine key recommendations were generated, including topics for general management, treatment of acute attacks, prophylaxis against recurrent acute attacks and management of chronic symptoms. It was recommended that optimal treatment requires both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. For acute CPP crystal arthritis, cool packs, temporary rest and joint aspiration combined with steroid injection are often sufficient. For prophylaxis or chronic inflammatory arthritis with CPPD, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with gastroprotective treatment and/or low-dose colchicine 0.5–1.0 mg daily may be used. Other recommendations included parenteral or oral corticosteroid for acute CPP arthritis in those unresponsive or unsuited to other measures, and low-dose corticosteroid, methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine for chronic inflammatory arthritis with CPPD. Asymptomatic CPPD requires no treatment. Strength of recommendations varies from 79% to 95%. Conclusion Nine key recommendations for management of CPP crystal associated arthritis were developed using both research evidence and expert consensus. Strength of recommendations was provided to assist the application of these recommendations.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 1998
Gerald Partsch; Ernst Wagner; Burkhard F. Leeb; Hans Bröll; Attila Dunky; Josef S Smolen
OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the concentrations of T cell derived cytokines in the synovial fluids (SFs) of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in comparison with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS Th1 type cytokines (interleukin 2 (IL2), tumour necrosis factor β (TNFβ), and interferon γ (INFγ)) and Th2 type cytokines (IL4, IL10) were measured by means of enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. RESULTS IL2 was usually not detectable in any of the disease groups. TNFβ was found in 3 of 31 PsA SFs (mean (SEM) 11.1 (2.3) pg/ml) and in a significantly lower concentration than in 20 of the 40 RA SFs (42.2 (15.6) pg/ml; p < 0.002). INFγ was measurable in 2 of 10 PsA and 6 of 16 RA SFs (p > 0.05). IL4 was present at low concentrations in 4 of 22 PsA SFs (0.41 (0.8) pg/ml), and in 15 of 20 RA SFs (0.63 (0.09) pg/ml; p < 0.01). IL10 was found in 4 of 27 PsA SFs (12.3 (0.9) pg/ml) and in 27 of 32 RA SFs (37.3 (4.9) pg/ml; p < 0.0001). In all OA SFs cytokine concentrations were below the limit of detection. CONCLUSION The pattern of T cell derived cytokines in PsA SFs was similar to that of RA SFs. However, both the frequency and the concentrations of cytokines were lower in PsA SFs than in RA SFs, while OA SFs generally lacked any detectable T cell cytokines altogether. The presence of Th1 and Th2 cell derived cytokines in PsA SFs suggests the presence of activated T cells in the inflamed joint tissues and their participation in the immunoinflammatory events.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage | 2011
Daniel F. McWilliams; Burkhard F. Leeb; Stella G. Muthuri; Michael Doherty; Weiya Zhang
INTRODUCTION Systematic reviews agree that knee osteoarthritis (OA) is related to occupational activities, but have not quantified the overall risks. METHODS Systematic review of observational studies of knee OA and occupation. Job titles, elite sport, heavy work, kneeling, and other activities were included. Relative risk estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) compared to sedentary work were retrieved or calculated for meta-analysis. Publication bias was examined with Egger tests and heterogeneity was determined with I(2) values and Q tests. Subgroup analysis was performed to examine causes of heterogeneity. A random effects model was performed to combine the data. RESULTS Studies of knee OA (n=51), persistent knee pain (n=12) and knee OA progression (n=3) were retrieved. Occupational risks for knee OA were examined in a total of 526,343 subjects in 8 cohort/prospective/longitudinal studies, 25 cross-sectional studies and 18 case control studies. The overall odds ratio (OR) was 1.61 (95% CI 1.45-1.78) with significant heterogeneity (I(2)=83.6%). Study designs showed a positive association between knee OA and occupational activities; cohort (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10-1.74), cross-sectional (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37-1.81) and case control (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.48-2.19). Overall there was evidence of publication bias (P<0.0001) which was apparent in the cross-sectional and case control studies (P<0.0001 and P=0.0247 respectively). CONCLUSIONS Some occupational activities increase the risk of knee OA, although the influences of publication bias and heterogeneity are important limitations of this study. Prospective studies would greatly improve the evidence base.
Rheumatology | 2012
Samuel L Whittle; Alexandra N. Colebatch; Rachelle Buchbinder; Christopher J. Edwards; Karen Adams; Matthias Englbrecht; Glen S. Hazlewood; Jonathan L. Marks; Helga Radner; Sofia Ramiro; Bethan L. Richards; Ingo H. Tarner; Daniel Aletaha; Claire Bombardier; Robert Landewé; Ulf Müller-Ladner; Johannes W. J. Bijlsma; Jaime Branco; Vivian P. Bykerk; Geraldo da Rocha Castelar Pinheiro; Anca Irinel Catrina; Pekka Hannonen; Patrick Kiely; Burkhard F. Leeb; Elisabeth Lie; Píndaro Martinez-Osuna; Carlomaurizio Montecucco; Mikkel Østergaard; Rene Westhovens; Jane Zochling
Objective. To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Methods. A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008–09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice. Results. A total of 49 242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice. Conclusions. Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2011
Pedro Machado; Isabel Castrejón; W Katchamart; R Koevoets; Bindee Kuriya; Monika Schoels; Lucía Silva-Fernández; Kristof Thevissen; Ward Vercoutere; Edith Villeneuve; Daniel Aletaha; Loreto Carmona; R Landewé; D. van der Heijde; J. W. J. Bijlsma; Vivian P. Bykerk; Helena Canhão; Anca Irinel Catrina; Patrick Durez; Christopher J. Edwards; M.D. Mjaavatten; Burkhard F. Leeb; B Losada; Emilio Martín-Mola; Píndaro Martinez-Osuna; Carlomaurizio Montecucco; Ulf Müller-Ladner; Mikkel Østergaard; B Sheane; Ricardo Machado Xavier
Objective To develop evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA). Methods 697 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2008–9 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and modified Delphi votes. In the first round 10 clinical questions were selected. A bibliographic team systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR 2007–2008 meeting abstracts. Relevant articles were reviewed for quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis. In the second round each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed. Results A total of 39 756 references were identified, of which 250 were systematically reviewed. Ten multinational key recommendations about the investigation and follow-up of UPIA were formulated. One recommendation addressed differential diagnosis and investigations prior to establishing the operational diagnosis of UPIA, seven recommendations related to the diagnostic and prognostic value of clinical and laboratory assessments in established UPIA (history and physical examination, acute phase reactants, autoantibodies, radiographs, MRI and ultrasound, genetic markers and synovial biopsy), one recommendation highlighted predictors of persistence (chronicity) and the final recommendation addressed monitoring of clinical disease activity in UPIA. Conclusions Ten recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up UPIA in the clinical setting were developed. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, thus enhancing their validity and practical use.