G.-R. Burmester

Updated consensus statement on biological agents for the treatment of rheumatic diseases, 2009

As in previous years, the consensus group to consider the use of biological agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases met during the 13th Annual Workshop on Advances in Targeted Therapies in April, 2011. The group consisted of rheumatologists from a number of universities among the continents of Europe, North America, South America, Australia and Asia. Pharmaceutical industry support was obtained from a number of companies for the annual workshop itself, but these companies had no part in the decisions about the specific programme or about the academic participants at this conference. Representatives of the supporting sponsors participated in the initial working groups to supply factual information. The sponsors did not participate in the drafting of the consensus statement. This consensus was prepared from the perspective of the treating physician. In view of the new data for abatacept, B cell-specific agents, interleukin 1 (IL-1) antagonists, tocilizumab (TCZ) and tumour necrosis factor α blocking agents (TNF inhibitors), an update of the previous consensus statement is appropriate. To allow ease of updating, the 2010 (data from March 2009 to January 2010) updates are incorporated into the body of the article, while 2011 updates (February 2010–January 2011) are separated and highlighted. The consensus statement is annotated to document the credibility of the data supporting it as much as possible. This annotation is that of Shekelle et al and is described in appendix 1.1 We have modified the Shekelle annotation by designating all abstracts as ‘category D evidence’, whether they describe well-controlled trials or not, as details of the study were often not available in the abstracts. Further, the number of possible references has become so large that reviews are sometimes included; if they contain category A references, they will be referred to as category A evidence. The rheumatologists and bioscientists who attended …

Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology

Within the past decade, musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) has become an established imaging technique for the diagnosis and follow up of patients with rheumatic diseases.1-5 This has been made possible through technological improvements, resulting in faster computers and higher frequency transducers. US is most commonly used in the assessment of soft tissue disease or detection of fluid collection and can also be used to visualise other structures, such as cartilage and bone surfaces.6 7 Owing to the better axial and lateral resolution of US, even minute bone surface abnormalities may be depicted. Thus destructive and/or reparative/hypertrophic changes on the bone surface may be seen before they are apparent on plain x rays or even magnetic resonance imaging.8 However, US wave frequencies cannot penetrate into bone, therefore imaging of intra-articular disease is usually not possible. The “real time” capability of US allows dynamic assessment of joint and tendon movements, which can often aid the detection of structural abnormalities. Advantages of US include its non-invasiveness, portability, relative inexpensiveness, lack of ionising radiation, and its ability to be repeated as often as necessary, making it particularly useful for the monitoring of treatment. US can also be used for guidance of aspiration, biopsy, and injection treatment.9 Most musculoskeletal work is performed using “grey scale”, which means images are produced in a black and white format; each white dot in the image represents a reflected sound wave. Sound waves travel in a similar way to light waves and therefore the denser a material is—for example, bone cortex, the more reflective it is and the whiter it appears on the screen. Water is the least reflective body material and therefore appears as black as the sound waves travel straight through it. Newer US techniques, which are currently being evaluated, include colour and power …

European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies

Background Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. Clear consensual treatment guidance focused on the musculoskeletal manifestations of PsA would be advantageous. The authors present European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the treatment of PsA with systemic or local (non-topical) symptomatic and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). Methods The recommendations are based on evidence from systematic literature reviews performed for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), glucocorticoids, synthetic DMARD and biological DMARD. This evidence was discussed, summarised and recommendations were formulated by a task force comprising 35 representatives, and providing levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement. Results Ten recommendations were developed for treatment from NSAID through synthetic DMARD to biological agents, accounting for articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA. Five overarching principles and a research agenda were defined. Conclusion These recommendations are intended to provide rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders with a consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes, based on combining evidence and expert opinion. The research agenda informs directions within EULAR and other communities interested in PsA.

Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: the RAPID 2 study. A randomised controlled trial

Background: Certolizumab pegol is a PEGylated tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol versus placebo, plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: An international, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in active adult-onset RA. Patients (n = 619) were randomised 2:2:1 to subcutaneous certolizumab pegol (liquid formulation) 400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4 followed by 200 mg or 400 mg plus MTX, or placebo plus MTX, every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary end point was ACR20 response at week 24. Secondary end points included ACR50 and ACR70 responses, change from baseline in modified Total Sharp Score, ACR core set variables and physical function. Results: Significantly more patients in the certolizumab pegol 200 mg and 400 mg groups achieved an ACR20 response versus placebo (p⩽0.001); rates were 57.3%, 57.6% and 8.7%, respectively. Certolizumab pegol 200 and 400 mg also significantly inhibited radiographic progression; mean changes from baseline in mTSS at week 24 were 0.2 and −0.4, respectively, versus 1.2 for placebo (rank analysis p⩽0.01). Certolizumab pegol-treated patients reported rapid and significant improvements in physical function versus placebo; mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI at week 24 were −0.50 and −0.50, respectively, versus −0.14 for placebo (p⩽0.001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with low incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events. Five patients developed tuberculosis. Conclusion: Certolizumab pegol plus MTX was more efficacious than placebo plus MTX, rapidly and significantly improving signs and symptoms of RA and physical function and inhibiting radiographic progression. Trial registration number: NCT00175877

Standardised nomenclature for glucocorticoid dosages and glucocorticoid treatment regimens : current questions and tentative answers in rheumatology

In rheumatology and other medical specialties there is a discrepancy between the widespread use and the imprecise designation of glucocorticoid treatment regimens. Verbal descriptions of glucocorticoid treatment regimens used in various phases of diseases vary between countries and institutions. Given this background, a workshop under the auspices of the EULAR Standing Committee on International Clinical Studies including Therapeutic Trials was held to discuss this issue and to seek a consensus on nomenclature for glucocorticoid treatment. This report summarises the panels discussion and recognises that answers derived from consensus conferences are not definitive. Nevertheless, recommendations on glucocorticoid treatment are presented that (1) reflect current and best knowledge available and (2) take into account current clinical practice. A question-answer rationale presentation style has been chosen to convey the messages, to summarise the meeting in a readable format, and to avoid dogmatism.

Synovitis score: discrimination between chronic low-grade and high-grade synovitis

Aims : To standardize the histopathological assessment of synovial membrane specimens in order to contribute to the diagnostics of rheumatic and non‐rheumatic joint diseases.

European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update

Background Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations. Methods A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated. Results The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used. Conclusions These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.

Effects of etanercept versus sulfasalazine in early axial spondyloarthritis on active inflammatory lesions as detected by whole-body MRI (ESTHER): a 48-week randomised controlled trial

Purpose To evaluate the potential of etanercept versus sulfasalazine to reduce active inflammatory lesions on whole-body MRI in active axial spondyloarthritis with a symptom duration of less than 5 years. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=40) or sulfasalazine (n=36) treatment over 48 weeks. All patients showed active inflammatory lesions (bone marrow oedema) on MRI in either the sacroiliac joints or the spine. MRI was performed at weeks 0, 24 and 48 and was scored for active inflammatory lesions in sacroiliac joints and the spine including posterior segments and peripheral enthesitis by two radiologists, blinded for treatment arm and MRI time point. Results In the etanercept group, the reduction of the sacroiliac joint score from 7.7 at baseline to 2.0 at week 48 was significantly (p=0.02) larger compared with the sulfasalazine group from 5.4 at baseline to 3.5 at week 48. A similar difference in the reduction of inflammation was found in the spine from 2.2 to 1.0 in the etanercept group versus from 1.4 to 1.3 in the sulfasalazine group between baseline and week 48, respectively (p=0.01). The number of enthesitic sites also improved significantly from 26 to 11 in the etanercept group versus 24 to 26 in the sulfasalazine group (p=0.04 for difference). 50% of patients reached clinical remission in the etanercept group versus 19% in the sulfasalazine group at week 48. Conclusion In patients with early axial spondyloarthritis active inflammatory lesions detected by whole-body MRI improved significantly more in etanercept versus sulfasalazine-treated patients. This effect correlated with a good clinical response in the etanercept group.

EULAR report on the use of ultrasonography in painful knee osteoarthritis. Part 1: Prevalence of inflammation in osteoarthritis

Objectives: To assess the prevalence of inflammation in subjects with chronic painful knee osteoarthritis (OA), as determined by the presence of synovitis or joint effusion at ultrasonography (US); and to evaluate the correlation between synovitis, effusion, and clinical parameters. Methods: A cross sectional, multicentre, European study was conducted under the umbrella of EULAR-ESCISIT. Subjects had primary chronic knee OA (ACR criteria) with pain during physical activity ⩾30 mm for at least 48 hours. Clinical parameters were collected by a rheumatologist and an US examination of the painful knee was performed by a radiologist or rheumatologist within 72 hours of the clinical examination. Ultrasonographic synovitis was defined as synovial thickness ⩾4 mm and diffuse or nodular appearance, and a joint effusion was defined as effusion depth ⩾4 mm. Results: 600 patients with painful knee OA were analysed. At US 16 (2.7%) had synovitis alone, 85 (14.2%) had both synovitis and effusion, 177 (29.5%) had joint effusion alone, and 322 (53.7%) had no inflammation according to the definitions employed. Multivariate analysis showed that inflammation seen by US correlated statistically with advanced radiographic disease (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ⩾3; odds ratio (OR) = 2.20 and 1.91 for synovitis and joint effusion, respectively), and with clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of an inflammatory “flare”, such as joint effusion on clinical examination (OR = 1.97 and 2.70 for synovitis and joint effusion, respectively) or sudden aggravation of knee pain (OR = 1.77 for joint effusion). Conclusion: US can detect synovial inflammation and effusion in painful knee OA, which correlate significantly with knee synovitis, effusion, and clinical parameters suggestive of an inflammatory “flare”.

The Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Controlled Trial (IMPACT): Results of radiographic analyses after 1 year

Objective: Infliximab is effective in improving signs and symptoms of joint/skin involvement, functional status, and quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Using IMPACT trial data, we assessed the effect of infliximab (IFX) on structural damage in PsA. Methods: Patients with active PsA were randomly assigned to receive placebo (PBO/IFX) or infliximab 5 mg/kg (IFX/IFX) at weeks 0, 2, 6, and 14, with the primary endpoint at week 16. The PBO group received infliximab loading doses at weeks 16, 18, and 22. Thereafter, all patients received infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks through week 50. Hand/feet radiographs were obtained at weeks 0 and 50. Total radiographic scores were determined using the PsA modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score. Projected annual rate of progression was calculated by dividing x ray score by disease duration (years). Results: As reported previously, 65% of infliximab treated patients versus 10% of PBO treated patients achieved an ACR20 response at week 16 (p<0.001). At week 50, 69% of patients achieved an ACR20 response. Radiographs (baseline and week 50) were available for 72/104 patients. At baseline, estimated mean annual rate of progression was 5.8 modified vdH-S points/year. Mean (median) changes from baseline to week 50 in the total modified vdH-S score were −1.95 (−0.50) for PBO/IFX and −1.52 (−0.50) for IFX/IFX patients (p = NS). At week 50, 85% and 84% of patients in the PBO/IFX and IFX/IFX groups had no worsening in the total modified vdH-S score. Conclusion: Infliximab inhibits radiographic progression in patients with PsA through week 50.